N.E. David's Blog: Writing Life
September 15, 2015
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE SUCCESSFUL – WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
I began this debate a couple of weeks ago with a discussion about the relative merits of Harper Lee’s latest release, GO SET A WATCHMAN, and its more famous antecedent, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD (see below, dated 31 August). I’m not proposing to reprise that argument now but I did put forward the suggestion that while one was ‘good’ and the other ‘bad’, they were both ‘successful’. And if that sounds like a conundrum to you, what I thought we’d do this week is explore things a little bit further and see if we can make some sense out of it.
Firstly, what do we mean by ‘good’ or ‘bad’? Well, please excuse the pun, but that’s literally a matter of opinion. Judging the merits of a book is a subjective exercise and there can be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about it – we’re relying on someone’s personal point of view. So who decides what’s good and what’s bad and whose point of view are we relying on? You’d think that the best place to start would be with the critics. This elite band has had the benefit of a literary education (or so we assume) and they’re therefore in the ideal position to decide. But I don’t always agree with them - and they don’t always agree amongst themselves (although in the case of GO SET A WATCHMAN, they seem to be fairly unanimous).
Prior to the introduction of the internet and the spread of social media, the critics were the sole (independent) arbiters of literary opinion. Now there’s another set of judges on the scene – the reading public – and through the review system on the likes of Amazon and Goodreads, we get a completely different perspective. Is that any better? In my view, no, it’s not and I think the review system is fundamentally flawed. In a world where three of the five stars available suggest a book is ‘good’, one says it’s ‘ok’ and only one points towards ‘bad’, there’s an inbuilt tendency to over-rate. Added to which is our general reluctance to be critical. This is especially the case for low-ranking and self-published authors who only ever sell in small numbers and are not exposed to the reading public at large. The ratings they gather will inevitably come from friends and family – and we all know what they’re going to say. So we find ourselves in a position where BERTIE THE BULLDOG, written by a complete amateur for his darling niece and published online without the benefit of any editing or spelling corrections, gets a solid five stars from Grannie, Grandpa and the milkman whereas GO SET A WATCHMAN gets rated with a measly one because they didn’t like what Harper Lee did to Atticus Finch. And she’s a Pulitzer Prize winning author for goodness sake! That’s not to say BERTIE THE BULLDOG isn’t a ‘good’ book (or that GO SET A WATCHMAN isn’t a ‘bad’ one) – it’s just that I don’t trust the rating system. I know of one self-pubbed author for instance whose book has garnered 57 reviews on Amazon, 46 of which are 5 stars, 10 are 4 stars and 1 is a 3 star (what a misery that last one must be!). He must have an awful lot of friends - even THE GREAT GATSBY doesn’t get numbers that good.
So if we don’t agree with the critics and we don’t trust Amazon reviews, who can we look to for guidance? Many moons ago, when I was an up and coming manager and on the Junior Board of Directors of a well-known industrial company, I was privy to pearls of wisdom dropped from on high. One of these compared a business to a three-legged stool in as much as it needed employees, customers and shareholders in order to survive – if one of them went missing, the stool fell over and the business went down with it. There’s a similar comparison to be made in the publishing industry. A book (be it ‘good’ or ‘bad’) needs an author, a readership and a publisher - without any one of these, nothing much will happen. I think we should discard author’s opinions (for obvious reasons) and we’ve heard from the readers - so what do the publishers have to say in all this?
This is the area where ‘good’ and ‘bad’ start to become muddled with ‘successful’. A publisher isn’t interested in whether a book is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ from the literary point of view, only how that might impinge on its success. On the basis that bad publicity is better than no publicity, some publishers might even welcome it as a means of provoking more sales. (Brief aside : The other week one of the red-tops ran a lead story on how Celebrity Big Brother was in huge trouble because there was a catfight dust-up between two of its female contestants. There’ll be a lot of people watching that on Saturday night, I thought. I’ll bet their publicist got a bonus). Take GREY for example, the latest in the Fifty Shades series. If you read the critics (when they can bring themselves to talk about it) it’s the worst book ever written in the English language. Are the publishers worried? Far from it. The readers (courtesy of Amazon reviews) have rated it with an average of 4.1 stars. And since there were over 5000 of them the last time I looked, they can’t all be E.L.James’ family and friends. It’s phenomenally successful. I can vouch for that. I had the misfortune to be doing a book signing the week GREY came out. Every few minutes someone came into the shop to buy a book – but nobody wanted to talk to me, they all went straight for the shelf with GREY on it.
On the other hand, A GIRL IS A HALF-FORMED THING has won countless plaudits from the critics – they’ve been tripping over themselves to tell us how good it is. It’s also won a number of literary prizes. But the majority of the reading public hate it. For a book of its supposed stature it has a meagre 174 Amazon reviews and the number of 1 star ratings exceeds the number of 5s. From the publisher’s point of view, it’s probably a turkey – all of which goes to suggest that critical acclaim (or lack of it) is no guide to success.
And while I’m on the subject… One thing I noticed about GREY was the lack of endorsements on the cover. Understandable I suppose, as no one with any kind of literary reputation would ever want to admit to even reading it, let alone bring themselves to say anything nice about it. That’s an exception. Most books have some kind of sales pitch to help them along. This often comes in the form of a friendly comment from another author. Take the books in The Richard and Judy Book Club for example. Being in a WH Smith’s bookshop most Saturdays, I get to be familiar with their latest offerings and it came to my attention how the author of one of their books would often show up as endorsing the book of another. Hmm… Sometimes their comments were really incisive, such as ‘Captivating’ or ‘Heart-warming’ or even (wait for it) ‘Unput-downable’. They must have used a lot of grey cells thinking that up. As for bad comments – well, there simply aren’t going to be any.
Here’s another thing you’ll often see on a book cover – ‘Number One Bestseller’. What does that mean for goodness sake? Where? When? Over what period of time? And by whose authority? Without some form of context it’s an entirely meaningless claim. Every time I go into a bookshop to do a book signing, my book is a Number One Bestseller – on the day, in that bookshop (ok so I lost out once to GREY but hey, 99 times out of 100 ain’t bad. 98 times actually. Back in February I did a book signing in Waterstones in Bradford where they have a café and their top-selling item for the day was cake. I still claimed victory). So does this mean I should I be putting ‘Number One Bestseller’ on the cover of my books? Probably not. Statements like these are not intended to help you decide whether a book is a ‘good’ one or not – they’re there to try and persuade you to buy it and thereby make the book successful. And by the way, one good thing about ‘successful’ is that at least it’s objective – we can measure it and know where we stand.
So where does all this get us? Are we anywhere nearer to being able to decide whether a book is ‘good’ or ‘bad’? The critics can be divided and are often out of step with the public. The public consistently over-rate books by means of a flawed rating system and are often out of step with the critics. The publishers only want to tell us a book is ‘good’ because they want us to buy it. Small wonder then that when we do we often end up disappointed and feeling mislead.
Let me leave you with a few final thoughts. As an author, ask yourself these questions.
1. Would you rather write a ‘good’ book or a ‘bad’ book? (On the face of it, that’s a no-brainer – but is it?)
2. If you had the choice (chance would be a fine thing) would you rather be rated ‘good’ by the critics and ‘bad’ by the public or ‘good’ by the public and ‘bad’ by the critics?
3. Would you rather write a ‘good’ book or a ‘successful’ one?
Any the wiser? No? Welcome to the world of publishing.
Firstly, what do we mean by ‘good’ or ‘bad’? Well, please excuse the pun, but that’s literally a matter of opinion. Judging the merits of a book is a subjective exercise and there can be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about it – we’re relying on someone’s personal point of view. So who decides what’s good and what’s bad and whose point of view are we relying on? You’d think that the best place to start would be with the critics. This elite band has had the benefit of a literary education (or so we assume) and they’re therefore in the ideal position to decide. But I don’t always agree with them - and they don’t always agree amongst themselves (although in the case of GO SET A WATCHMAN, they seem to be fairly unanimous).
Prior to the introduction of the internet and the spread of social media, the critics were the sole (independent) arbiters of literary opinion. Now there’s another set of judges on the scene – the reading public – and through the review system on the likes of Amazon and Goodreads, we get a completely different perspective. Is that any better? In my view, no, it’s not and I think the review system is fundamentally flawed. In a world where three of the five stars available suggest a book is ‘good’, one says it’s ‘ok’ and only one points towards ‘bad’, there’s an inbuilt tendency to over-rate. Added to which is our general reluctance to be critical. This is especially the case for low-ranking and self-published authors who only ever sell in small numbers and are not exposed to the reading public at large. The ratings they gather will inevitably come from friends and family – and we all know what they’re going to say. So we find ourselves in a position where BERTIE THE BULLDOG, written by a complete amateur for his darling niece and published online without the benefit of any editing or spelling corrections, gets a solid five stars from Grannie, Grandpa and the milkman whereas GO SET A WATCHMAN gets rated with a measly one because they didn’t like what Harper Lee did to Atticus Finch. And she’s a Pulitzer Prize winning author for goodness sake! That’s not to say BERTIE THE BULLDOG isn’t a ‘good’ book (or that GO SET A WATCHMAN isn’t a ‘bad’ one) – it’s just that I don’t trust the rating system. I know of one self-pubbed author for instance whose book has garnered 57 reviews on Amazon, 46 of which are 5 stars, 10 are 4 stars and 1 is a 3 star (what a misery that last one must be!). He must have an awful lot of friends - even THE GREAT GATSBY doesn’t get numbers that good.
So if we don’t agree with the critics and we don’t trust Amazon reviews, who can we look to for guidance? Many moons ago, when I was an up and coming manager and on the Junior Board of Directors of a well-known industrial company, I was privy to pearls of wisdom dropped from on high. One of these compared a business to a three-legged stool in as much as it needed employees, customers and shareholders in order to survive – if one of them went missing, the stool fell over and the business went down with it. There’s a similar comparison to be made in the publishing industry. A book (be it ‘good’ or ‘bad’) needs an author, a readership and a publisher - without any one of these, nothing much will happen. I think we should discard author’s opinions (for obvious reasons) and we’ve heard from the readers - so what do the publishers have to say in all this?
This is the area where ‘good’ and ‘bad’ start to become muddled with ‘successful’. A publisher isn’t interested in whether a book is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ from the literary point of view, only how that might impinge on its success. On the basis that bad publicity is better than no publicity, some publishers might even welcome it as a means of provoking more sales. (Brief aside : The other week one of the red-tops ran a lead story on how Celebrity Big Brother was in huge trouble because there was a catfight dust-up between two of its female contestants. There’ll be a lot of people watching that on Saturday night, I thought. I’ll bet their publicist got a bonus). Take GREY for example, the latest in the Fifty Shades series. If you read the critics (when they can bring themselves to talk about it) it’s the worst book ever written in the English language. Are the publishers worried? Far from it. The readers (courtesy of Amazon reviews) have rated it with an average of 4.1 stars. And since there were over 5000 of them the last time I looked, they can’t all be E.L.James’ family and friends. It’s phenomenally successful. I can vouch for that. I had the misfortune to be doing a book signing the week GREY came out. Every few minutes someone came into the shop to buy a book – but nobody wanted to talk to me, they all went straight for the shelf with GREY on it.
On the other hand, A GIRL IS A HALF-FORMED THING has won countless plaudits from the critics – they’ve been tripping over themselves to tell us how good it is. It’s also won a number of literary prizes. But the majority of the reading public hate it. For a book of its supposed stature it has a meagre 174 Amazon reviews and the number of 1 star ratings exceeds the number of 5s. From the publisher’s point of view, it’s probably a turkey – all of which goes to suggest that critical acclaim (or lack of it) is no guide to success.
And while I’m on the subject… One thing I noticed about GREY was the lack of endorsements on the cover. Understandable I suppose, as no one with any kind of literary reputation would ever want to admit to even reading it, let alone bring themselves to say anything nice about it. That’s an exception. Most books have some kind of sales pitch to help them along. This often comes in the form of a friendly comment from another author. Take the books in The Richard and Judy Book Club for example. Being in a WH Smith’s bookshop most Saturdays, I get to be familiar with their latest offerings and it came to my attention how the author of one of their books would often show up as endorsing the book of another. Hmm… Sometimes their comments were really incisive, such as ‘Captivating’ or ‘Heart-warming’ or even (wait for it) ‘Unput-downable’. They must have used a lot of grey cells thinking that up. As for bad comments – well, there simply aren’t going to be any.
Here’s another thing you’ll often see on a book cover – ‘Number One Bestseller’. What does that mean for goodness sake? Where? When? Over what period of time? And by whose authority? Without some form of context it’s an entirely meaningless claim. Every time I go into a bookshop to do a book signing, my book is a Number One Bestseller – on the day, in that bookshop (ok so I lost out once to GREY but hey, 99 times out of 100 ain’t bad. 98 times actually. Back in February I did a book signing in Waterstones in Bradford where they have a café and their top-selling item for the day was cake. I still claimed victory). So does this mean I should I be putting ‘Number One Bestseller’ on the cover of my books? Probably not. Statements like these are not intended to help you decide whether a book is a ‘good’ one or not – they’re there to try and persuade you to buy it and thereby make the book successful. And by the way, one good thing about ‘successful’ is that at least it’s objective – we can measure it and know where we stand.
So where does all this get us? Are we anywhere nearer to being able to decide whether a book is ‘good’ or ‘bad’? The critics can be divided and are often out of step with the public. The public consistently over-rate books by means of a flawed rating system and are often out of step with the critics. The publishers only want to tell us a book is ‘good’ because they want us to buy it. Small wonder then that when we do we often end up disappointed and feeling mislead.
Let me leave you with a few final thoughts. As an author, ask yourself these questions.
1. Would you rather write a ‘good’ book or a ‘bad’ book? (On the face of it, that’s a no-brainer – but is it?)
2. If you had the choice (chance would be a fine thing) would you rather be rated ‘good’ by the critics and ‘bad’ by the public or ‘good’ by the public and ‘bad’ by the critics?
3. Would you rather write a ‘good’ book or a ‘successful’ one?
Any the wiser? No? Welcome to the world of publishing.
September 2, 2015
GO SET A WATCHMAN – LESSONS TO BE LEARNED
The recent publication of GO SET A WATCHMAN, Harper Lee’s precursor to TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD, her much vaunted story of racial prejudice in the Southern States of America, has been hailed as ‘the literary event of the year’. The book’s publishers would certainly like to think so, as do many of the critics. Those of you who are regular visitors to my website will know that I’ve frequented an awful lot of bookshops in the past six months and on the basis of my personal observations I can vouch for both the book’s prominence and its popularity. Its only challenger to the title ‘Book of the Year’ would be GREY – but then, that’s not deemed ‘literary’ so the critics don’t give it a mention.
The general concensus amongst those whose profession it is to pronounce on such things is that GO SET A WATCHMAN is a ‘bad’ book. To gauge by the ratings on Amazon, readers views are mixed but I do note a significant proportion of 1 and 2 star reviews, more than I would expect for an author of Ms Lee’s status. (Who trusts Amazon reviews anyway?). I naturally want to come to my own view and as is usual on these occasions, I’ve studiously avoided looking at anyone else’s thoughts before forming my own. So, do I think it’s a ‘bad’ book? If so, why? And are there any lessons to be learned?
Well, this time I’m in accordance with the critics and yes, I do think it’s a ‘bad’ book. Having said that, many ‘worse’ books have been let loose on the public and have still been successful - let’s not go confusing ‘good’ with success. The problem for GO SET A WATCHMAN is that it will always suffer by comparison with TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. The latter is a literary masterpiece and ranks up there with the best. Many of you will have studied it as a standard English GCSE/A Level text. A common question on test papers in future years may be to contrast and compare the two. I’m going to try and do that now in abbreviated form.
Let me begin by saying that if you’re expecting the two books to be in any way similar, you’re in for a big disappointment. Although GO SET A WATCHMAN may have the appearance of being a sequel (it’s set 20 years later) it was actually written before TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD was ever invented. Plus, it’s a first draft. And as Ernest Hemingway once said ‘The first draft is always s**t’. No one ever publishes a first draft, so to do so now is terribly unfair on Harper Lee. Personally I’m glad it’s out and that I’ve read it because as a piece of literary history this is a precious document. What fascinates me as a writer is how this ugly duckling of a manuscript ever became the swan we’ve come to love today. Lee’s editor must have had untold amounts of foresight and patience. In the modern day and age where the book publishing industry demands instant success, it wouldn’t even make it to the slush pile. Why?
Beyond the conventionally obvious ie. no one is raped, murdered or dies in the first sentence, there’s firstly the matter of the writing. The prose is nowhere near as rich and rewarding as it is in TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. GO SET A WATCHMAN is written in the 3rd person rather than the 1st so it lacks the intimacy that goes with Scout’s childhood memories which are such an integral part of the story.
Then there’s the plot – or rather the lack of it. No real spoiler here as there isn’t much to spoil. Jean Louise Finch (Scout) returns to Maycomb from New York in her twenties to find her father (Atticus) in failing health. The Supreme Court has issued a contentious ruling concerning the rights of Negroes and a citizens council is held where bigoted views are expressed which Atticus seems to support. Jean Louise (one can hardly call her Scout any more) finds out and is incensed, causing her to challenge her father and change her views about him – he’s no longer the paragon of virtue she once held him to be. The ending is a messy compromise where Jean Louise appears to accept her own bigotry in failing to see her father’s point of view. It might have been more credible had she stuck to her principles and got on the train back to New York.
There’s no real sub-plot either. True, there’s Jean Louise’s relationship with Hank, the man most everyone (especially Hank) thinks she’s going to marry, but it doesn’t really develop and go anywhere. In MOCKING BIRD, there was that wonderful story going on about Boo Radley and the first 100 or so pages of that book were devoted to the mystery of his existence. It created what we call ‘narrative drive’, the impetus behind a story that makes everyone want to continue reading. The first 100 pages of WATCHMAN are taken up with a series of anecdotes about Maycomb and Jean Louise’s in/out relationship with Hank. I suppose you could argue that creates a certain level of interest but it lacks that essential tension. Nothing of any real significance happens until midway through the book and the meeting of the citizens council.
One thing that does unite the two books is the theme. What Lee was trying to portray on each occasion was the disconnect in the South between the white and the black communities and the racial tension and bigotry that produced. That comes across clearly in MOCKING BIRD but I find its expression in WATCHMAN muddled and confused. I suspect that race relations in America changed significantly in the two decades after MOCKING BIRD was set but I get no understanding from WATCHMAN as to how. Much of this may be due to the fact that I have little knowledge of American politics of the time and certainly nothing of the problems caused by the Supreme Court ruling which seem to lie at the heart of the book. Lee attempts to explain this to us by means of a conversation between Jean Louise and her erudite Uncle Jack – far too erudite in fact, as not only did I fail to understand his argument but so did Jean Louise, a situation which leaves all but the most knowledgeable American reader none the wiser. This is precisely the kind of mistake a good editor and a serious rewrite would rectify. But as we know, this is an unrefined first draft and so remains flawed.
This leads us directly on to the debate surrounding Atticus himself. Much has been made of how WATCHMAN destroys the virtuous image of him we were given in MOCKING BIRD. Again, I have a clear picture of his character as portrayed in the 1930s story but Lee has failed to flesh him out in the 1950s version. We get the impression that he’s changed his views but the inadequate exposition of the political background leaves us floundering as to how or why.
I have a theory which you may (or may not) find helpful. In MOCKING BIRD Atticus adheres to the belief that all men, black or white, should receive equal treatment before the law. So in the trial of Tom Robinson he is primarily concerned with upholding the integrity of the judicial system rather than the rights of Negroes per se. The book is not concerned as to whether he thinks the black and the white populations should be integrated – it wasn’t a subject of debate at the time. But by the 1950s it is, the Supreme Court ruling (whatever that said) has sharpened that debate and Atticus has formed the view that blacks and whites should remain apart. That doesn’t mean he’s changed his views – he still believes in the same impartiality of the law – but on the separate question of segregation he takes what is essentially the ‘Southern’ line. This naturally comes as a shock to Jean Louise who has spent the last few years in the far more liberal atmosphere of New York. WATCHMAN suggests she has been ‘blind’ ie. has fallen out of step with, or perhaps, in the innocence of her youth, never fully understood, what being ‘Southern’ means.
This may also explain why Lee’s editor persuaded her to take the story back 20 years. To have published WATCHMAN in the 1950s, containing what were undoubtedly contentious views at the time, would have risked an outcry – much safer to push things back into the past and represent Atticus in a far more ‘liberal’ and acceptable light, thereby making him a hero to ‘Northern’ opinion. What we should also remember is that we are looking at this another 50 years later. The social and political environment has continued to move on and we risk judging Atticus by today’s standards rather than those of his time. Does that make his views any the more acceptable? Perhaps this is the fundamental question the publication of GO SET A WATCHMAN asks us to address.
So, what can we learn from all this? Leaving aside the thorny problem of American politics and race relations (wise men fear to tread etc.) I feel able draw two major conclusions from an author’s point of view.
1.The metamorphosis of GO SET A WATCHMAN into TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD gives us great hope as writers in that it shows us it’s perfectly possible to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. If you’re like me, your first draft will be s**t and you will be tempted to consign it to the waste bin. We now know that the application of objective thought and significant amounts of work can transform that draft into a world-beating manuscript. I just wish I had an editor as insightful as Taylor Hohoff was for Harper Lee.
2.What we also know is that a ‘bad’ book can be a tremendous commercial success. I’m not going to invoke further argument by citing what I think are good examples of this (I’m sure we can all think of some ourselves) but WATCHMAN stands high on the list. The book-buying public will be the ultimate arbiter of this of course but at the moment it seems to be doing exactly what Harper Collins marketeers have told it to do and are flocking to it in their thousands despite any adverse publicity.
In summary, what this reveals to me is that you can write a ‘bad’ book, rewrite it and even if it’s still not good enough, with enough hype you can always sell it. Hmm... Is that a good thing or not? More of this next time...
The general concensus amongst those whose profession it is to pronounce on such things is that GO SET A WATCHMAN is a ‘bad’ book. To gauge by the ratings on Amazon, readers views are mixed but I do note a significant proportion of 1 and 2 star reviews, more than I would expect for an author of Ms Lee’s status. (Who trusts Amazon reviews anyway?). I naturally want to come to my own view and as is usual on these occasions, I’ve studiously avoided looking at anyone else’s thoughts before forming my own. So, do I think it’s a ‘bad’ book? If so, why? And are there any lessons to be learned?
Well, this time I’m in accordance with the critics and yes, I do think it’s a ‘bad’ book. Having said that, many ‘worse’ books have been let loose on the public and have still been successful - let’s not go confusing ‘good’ with success. The problem for GO SET A WATCHMAN is that it will always suffer by comparison with TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. The latter is a literary masterpiece and ranks up there with the best. Many of you will have studied it as a standard English GCSE/A Level text. A common question on test papers in future years may be to contrast and compare the two. I’m going to try and do that now in abbreviated form.
Let me begin by saying that if you’re expecting the two books to be in any way similar, you’re in for a big disappointment. Although GO SET A WATCHMAN may have the appearance of being a sequel (it’s set 20 years later) it was actually written before TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD was ever invented. Plus, it’s a first draft. And as Ernest Hemingway once said ‘The first draft is always s**t’. No one ever publishes a first draft, so to do so now is terribly unfair on Harper Lee. Personally I’m glad it’s out and that I’ve read it because as a piece of literary history this is a precious document. What fascinates me as a writer is how this ugly duckling of a manuscript ever became the swan we’ve come to love today. Lee’s editor must have had untold amounts of foresight and patience. In the modern day and age where the book publishing industry demands instant success, it wouldn’t even make it to the slush pile. Why?
Beyond the conventionally obvious ie. no one is raped, murdered or dies in the first sentence, there’s firstly the matter of the writing. The prose is nowhere near as rich and rewarding as it is in TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. GO SET A WATCHMAN is written in the 3rd person rather than the 1st so it lacks the intimacy that goes with Scout’s childhood memories which are such an integral part of the story.
Then there’s the plot – or rather the lack of it. No real spoiler here as there isn’t much to spoil. Jean Louise Finch (Scout) returns to Maycomb from New York in her twenties to find her father (Atticus) in failing health. The Supreme Court has issued a contentious ruling concerning the rights of Negroes and a citizens council is held where bigoted views are expressed which Atticus seems to support. Jean Louise (one can hardly call her Scout any more) finds out and is incensed, causing her to challenge her father and change her views about him – he’s no longer the paragon of virtue she once held him to be. The ending is a messy compromise where Jean Louise appears to accept her own bigotry in failing to see her father’s point of view. It might have been more credible had she stuck to her principles and got on the train back to New York.
There’s no real sub-plot either. True, there’s Jean Louise’s relationship with Hank, the man most everyone (especially Hank) thinks she’s going to marry, but it doesn’t really develop and go anywhere. In MOCKING BIRD, there was that wonderful story going on about Boo Radley and the first 100 or so pages of that book were devoted to the mystery of his existence. It created what we call ‘narrative drive’, the impetus behind a story that makes everyone want to continue reading. The first 100 pages of WATCHMAN are taken up with a series of anecdotes about Maycomb and Jean Louise’s in/out relationship with Hank. I suppose you could argue that creates a certain level of interest but it lacks that essential tension. Nothing of any real significance happens until midway through the book and the meeting of the citizens council.
One thing that does unite the two books is the theme. What Lee was trying to portray on each occasion was the disconnect in the South between the white and the black communities and the racial tension and bigotry that produced. That comes across clearly in MOCKING BIRD but I find its expression in WATCHMAN muddled and confused. I suspect that race relations in America changed significantly in the two decades after MOCKING BIRD was set but I get no understanding from WATCHMAN as to how. Much of this may be due to the fact that I have little knowledge of American politics of the time and certainly nothing of the problems caused by the Supreme Court ruling which seem to lie at the heart of the book. Lee attempts to explain this to us by means of a conversation between Jean Louise and her erudite Uncle Jack – far too erudite in fact, as not only did I fail to understand his argument but so did Jean Louise, a situation which leaves all but the most knowledgeable American reader none the wiser. This is precisely the kind of mistake a good editor and a serious rewrite would rectify. But as we know, this is an unrefined first draft and so remains flawed.
This leads us directly on to the debate surrounding Atticus himself. Much has been made of how WATCHMAN destroys the virtuous image of him we were given in MOCKING BIRD. Again, I have a clear picture of his character as portrayed in the 1930s story but Lee has failed to flesh him out in the 1950s version. We get the impression that he’s changed his views but the inadequate exposition of the political background leaves us floundering as to how or why.
I have a theory which you may (or may not) find helpful. In MOCKING BIRD Atticus adheres to the belief that all men, black or white, should receive equal treatment before the law. So in the trial of Tom Robinson he is primarily concerned with upholding the integrity of the judicial system rather than the rights of Negroes per se. The book is not concerned as to whether he thinks the black and the white populations should be integrated – it wasn’t a subject of debate at the time. But by the 1950s it is, the Supreme Court ruling (whatever that said) has sharpened that debate and Atticus has formed the view that blacks and whites should remain apart. That doesn’t mean he’s changed his views – he still believes in the same impartiality of the law – but on the separate question of segregation he takes what is essentially the ‘Southern’ line. This naturally comes as a shock to Jean Louise who has spent the last few years in the far more liberal atmosphere of New York. WATCHMAN suggests she has been ‘blind’ ie. has fallen out of step with, or perhaps, in the innocence of her youth, never fully understood, what being ‘Southern’ means.
This may also explain why Lee’s editor persuaded her to take the story back 20 years. To have published WATCHMAN in the 1950s, containing what were undoubtedly contentious views at the time, would have risked an outcry – much safer to push things back into the past and represent Atticus in a far more ‘liberal’ and acceptable light, thereby making him a hero to ‘Northern’ opinion. What we should also remember is that we are looking at this another 50 years later. The social and political environment has continued to move on and we risk judging Atticus by today’s standards rather than those of his time. Does that make his views any the more acceptable? Perhaps this is the fundamental question the publication of GO SET A WATCHMAN asks us to address.
So, what can we learn from all this? Leaving aside the thorny problem of American politics and race relations (wise men fear to tread etc.) I feel able draw two major conclusions from an author’s point of view.
1.The metamorphosis of GO SET A WATCHMAN into TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD gives us great hope as writers in that it shows us it’s perfectly possible to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. If you’re like me, your first draft will be s**t and you will be tempted to consign it to the waste bin. We now know that the application of objective thought and significant amounts of work can transform that draft into a world-beating manuscript. I just wish I had an editor as insightful as Taylor Hohoff was for Harper Lee.
2.What we also know is that a ‘bad’ book can be a tremendous commercial success. I’m not going to invoke further argument by citing what I think are good examples of this (I’m sure we can all think of some ourselves) but WATCHMAN stands high on the list. The book-buying public will be the ultimate arbiter of this of course but at the moment it seems to be doing exactly what Harper Collins marketeers have told it to do and are flocking to it in their thousands despite any adverse publicity.
In summary, what this reveals to me is that you can write a ‘bad’ book, rewrite it and even if it’s still not good enough, with enough hype you can always sell it. Hmm... Is that a good thing or not? More of this next time...
April 29, 2015
Playing Catch-Up - A Promise To Do Better
I’ve just bought a new computer. Its predecessor, ‘Old Faithful’, was well past its sell-by date and was proving not to be as faithful as one would like. The crunch came one morning a week or so ago when This page has become unresponsive appeared for the umpteenth time and it took over forty minutes to open my email account. Time to act.
So, a couple of days to set up the new one and a look round my various accounts to make sure everything was functioning correctly. Imagine my horror when I discovered that the last update to my website was over a month ago and the last serious post in this column was dated January. What had I been doing? Had I been too busy to attend to it or had I simply fallen out of the habit? Busy, certainly. A change of habits? Well maybe, but no justification and either way it was time to catch up.
So what have I been doing since January? Looking back at the post I made then it would appear that little has changed and that there’s simply been more of it. If you’ve visited the website at all you will have noticed that the Winter Tour of Yorkshire’s bookshops has moved on and become the Spring Tour. Since mid-December I’ve completed a total of 16 book signings yielding sales of over 430 books. Compared to a figure of around 130 in the first 11 months of 2014, it’s easy to see why I’ve continued with it. My target of 1000 copies of BIRDS OF THE NILE is now well within sight and a Summer Tour is being planned.
But before I embark on that, I’m awarding myself a short break and at the end of next week I’m off on my annual bird-watching expedition. Last year it was Morocco, this year it’s Estonia and provided Mr Putin doesn’t do something silly, I shall enjoy a few days away looking for the likes of Hazel Grouse, Nutcracker and Black Woodpecker. And as is usual on these jaunts, we will be completely out of touch with current affairs in the UK. When I went to Northern Greece in 2010, skilfully dodging the ash clouds from the Icelandic volcano, we missed the drama that followed the General Election. This year looks like being much the same. A shame, as I would have liked to have seen how things unfold.
So I will be returning to a new government and the challenge of launching my new novel. THE BURDEN has already been published but I have held off promoting it while I still have unfinished business with BIRDS OF THE NILE. I hope to have that complete by the end of June and 2 July sees the formal launch of THE BURDEN with a York Lit Fest backed event at Waterstones. Festival Director, Miles Salter, has not only contributed a helpful endorsement but will also be conducting an interview on the night. If you find that of interest at all, please keep the date free in your diary.
All this sounds tremendously positive – and so it is. The fly in the writing ointment has been my current work in progress, MÄLAREN. Despite getting the year off to a flying start with a first draft of 94000 words, the re-write has been painfully slow and I have to admit to suffering a case of writers block. As a result I’ve decided to take a break from that too and hope to return from Estonia both physically and mentally refreshed.
But let me go back to politics for just a moment. I’ve spent the last few weeks listening to innumerable promises being made by politicians from all sides. They can’t surely all be kept and I’ve become increasingly sceptical. This makes me wary of making promises of my own but I am resolved to do better in terms of this column and my website in general. So I’m giving an undertaking to give it more attention than I have done in recent months and keep it updated on a regular basis. And if it comes down to a question of trust between me and the next government, let’s see who breaks first.
So, a couple of days to set up the new one and a look round my various accounts to make sure everything was functioning correctly. Imagine my horror when I discovered that the last update to my website was over a month ago and the last serious post in this column was dated January. What had I been doing? Had I been too busy to attend to it or had I simply fallen out of the habit? Busy, certainly. A change of habits? Well maybe, but no justification and either way it was time to catch up.
So what have I been doing since January? Looking back at the post I made then it would appear that little has changed and that there’s simply been more of it. If you’ve visited the website at all you will have noticed that the Winter Tour of Yorkshire’s bookshops has moved on and become the Spring Tour. Since mid-December I’ve completed a total of 16 book signings yielding sales of over 430 books. Compared to a figure of around 130 in the first 11 months of 2014, it’s easy to see why I’ve continued with it. My target of 1000 copies of BIRDS OF THE NILE is now well within sight and a Summer Tour is being planned.
But before I embark on that, I’m awarding myself a short break and at the end of next week I’m off on my annual bird-watching expedition. Last year it was Morocco, this year it’s Estonia and provided Mr Putin doesn’t do something silly, I shall enjoy a few days away looking for the likes of Hazel Grouse, Nutcracker and Black Woodpecker. And as is usual on these jaunts, we will be completely out of touch with current affairs in the UK. When I went to Northern Greece in 2010, skilfully dodging the ash clouds from the Icelandic volcano, we missed the drama that followed the General Election. This year looks like being much the same. A shame, as I would have liked to have seen how things unfold.
So I will be returning to a new government and the challenge of launching my new novel. THE BURDEN has already been published but I have held off promoting it while I still have unfinished business with BIRDS OF THE NILE. I hope to have that complete by the end of June and 2 July sees the formal launch of THE BURDEN with a York Lit Fest backed event at Waterstones. Festival Director, Miles Salter, has not only contributed a helpful endorsement but will also be conducting an interview on the night. If you find that of interest at all, please keep the date free in your diary.
All this sounds tremendously positive – and so it is. The fly in the writing ointment has been my current work in progress, MÄLAREN. Despite getting the year off to a flying start with a first draft of 94000 words, the re-write has been painfully slow and I have to admit to suffering a case of writers block. As a result I’ve decided to take a break from that too and hope to return from Estonia both physically and mentally refreshed.
But let me go back to politics for just a moment. I’ve spent the last few weeks listening to innumerable promises being made by politicians from all sides. They can’t surely all be kept and I’ve become increasingly sceptical. This makes me wary of making promises of my own but I am resolved to do better in terms of this column and my website in general. So I’m giving an undertaking to give it more attention than I have done in recent months and keep it updated on a regular basis. And if it comes down to a question of trust between me and the next government, let’s see who breaks first.
January 12, 2015
My Business Plan for 2015
12 January 2015
It’s about now that I sit down to write my business plan for the forthcoming year. It’s a habit I began at the end of 2012 when I suggested that every writer should do so. You could (rightly) argue that I was making a rod for my own back since once I’d persuaded everyone else to do it I could hardly not do so myself. And looking back at my previous efforts, I notice that in each succeeding year my post on the subject gets progressively later. Here we are in what is in effect the middle of January and I’m only just settling down to it. Life gets more and more complicated, it seems.
But I don’t regret making the commitment. I remain convinced that setting these things down on paper makes them much more likely to be achieved. Even more so when they are displayed in public and one can be held to account. One doesn’t like to be seen to have failed.
And have I failed? Generally speaking, I don’t think so. I may not have completed everything I set out to do in 2013 and 2014 but for the most part I got things done. My third novella went to ebook and BIRDS OF THE NILE WAS published successfully. Sales have yet to reach their final target but I’m 67% of the way and now that I’ve discovered the power of the bookstore book signing I have every chance of getting there. Finishing that task will have to carry forward to 2015.
What started life with the title AS DAD LAY DYING has morphed into THE BURDEN. I rewrote it, found a publisher for it and it comes out in the Spring. A major task for this year is to see it successfully launched. True, I failed to find an agent for it or any other of my work and this remains a hole I really need to fill. Something else to carry forward into 2015.
One of my objectives for 2013 was to write the first draft of a third novel, MÄLAREN. That I did, although it has lain untouched in my work in progress drawer ever since. Now that THE BURDEN has flown the nest, I’ve fetched it out and begun reworking it. As yet I’ve only succeeded in reading it through and all I can tell you is it will need an awful lot of time and effort before it’s ready to see the light of day. Probably a whole year in fact ie. 2015. This must be my first priority since actually writing something will always take precedence.
The sooner I get that done the sooner I can begin another first draft. The work I have in mind has a working title of IN A STRANGE HOTEL. If I could get started on it some time this year, that would be wonderful.
So that just about completes my objectives for 2015. And so that there’s no confusion, in either my mind or yours, I’ll reiterate them here.
1. To rewrite and prepare MÄLAREN ready for publication in 2016
2. To successfully launch THE BURDEN
3. To achieve my sales target for BIRDS OF THE NILE
4. To find an agent
5. To begin the first draft of IN A STRANGE HOTEL
See what I mean about life getting more and more complicated? Goodness knows what next year will look like...
It’s about now that I sit down to write my business plan for the forthcoming year. It’s a habit I began at the end of 2012 when I suggested that every writer should do so. You could (rightly) argue that I was making a rod for my own back since once I’d persuaded everyone else to do it I could hardly not do so myself. And looking back at my previous efforts, I notice that in each succeeding year my post on the subject gets progressively later. Here we are in what is in effect the middle of January and I’m only just settling down to it. Life gets more and more complicated, it seems.
But I don’t regret making the commitment. I remain convinced that setting these things down on paper makes them much more likely to be achieved. Even more so when they are displayed in public and one can be held to account. One doesn’t like to be seen to have failed.
And have I failed? Generally speaking, I don’t think so. I may not have completed everything I set out to do in 2013 and 2014 but for the most part I got things done. My third novella went to ebook and BIRDS OF THE NILE WAS published successfully. Sales have yet to reach their final target but I’m 67% of the way and now that I’ve discovered the power of the bookstore book signing I have every chance of getting there. Finishing that task will have to carry forward to 2015.
What started life with the title AS DAD LAY DYING has morphed into THE BURDEN. I rewrote it, found a publisher for it and it comes out in the Spring. A major task for this year is to see it successfully launched. True, I failed to find an agent for it or any other of my work and this remains a hole I really need to fill. Something else to carry forward into 2015.
One of my objectives for 2013 was to write the first draft of a third novel, MÄLAREN. That I did, although it has lain untouched in my work in progress drawer ever since. Now that THE BURDEN has flown the nest, I’ve fetched it out and begun reworking it. As yet I’ve only succeeded in reading it through and all I can tell you is it will need an awful lot of time and effort before it’s ready to see the light of day. Probably a whole year in fact ie. 2015. This must be my first priority since actually writing something will always take precedence.
The sooner I get that done the sooner I can begin another first draft. The work I have in mind has a working title of IN A STRANGE HOTEL. If I could get started on it some time this year, that would be wonderful.
So that just about completes my objectives for 2015. And so that there’s no confusion, in either my mind or yours, I’ll reiterate them here.
1. To rewrite and prepare MÄLAREN ready for publication in 2016
2. To successfully launch THE BURDEN
3. To achieve my sales target for BIRDS OF THE NILE
4. To find an agent
5. To begin the first draft of IN A STRANGE HOTEL
See what I mean about life getting more and more complicated? Goodness knows what next year will look like...
December 30, 2014
An Absence of Thought
30 December 2014
It’s some considerable time since I visited these pages. Far too long in fact. Worse still, I’ve really had nothing to say. Other than my newsletter of late October there’s been nothing posted here since my two articles about the publishing industry back in September. What on earth have I been doing, I ask myself? The answer, it seems, is fairly simple. Having had the go ahead from John Hunt, I became obsessed with preparing THE BURDEN for publication to the exclusion of all else. Fortunately, that task is now complete and hopefully I can move on.
In writing terms, the last four months have been conditioned by a single event. The York Festival of Writing was a watershed for me. I remember building it up in advance and telling myself that its outcome would decide things for the foreseeable future. How true that has been! Although whether it was as a natural result of the decisions that were made there or whether I was determined to make it so, I haven’t stopped to think. I’ve even had to go back to my papers and look up the piece of work I pitched as I’m sure it wasn’t THE BURDEN itself. That had already done the rounds some time before and accrued its allotted share of rejections. My principal objective at York was to attract an agent and I was using material from another work in progress, BOXED IN, to do it. When that failed (as the pessimist within me would say it was bound to) I reverted to Plan B and immediately sent THE BURDEN off to John Hunt. They responded within days (bless them) and I remember my yelp as their first (positive) reader review appeared on their website. I’ve been driven ever since, my head’s been in a cloud and it’s only now that I’ve come back down to earth.
Ok, so you’ve written your novel, slaved away over countless redrafts and a sizeable chunk of your life has disappeared while you were at it. Acceptance for publication is great and justifies your efforts – but there’s still a lot more work left to do. Take proofreading for example. No point in having your carefully constructed masterpiece spoilt in the hands of your reader by typos and poor layout. To do this properly can take weeks and it’s while you’re slowly reading through it that you discover that you never did straighten out those little glitches in the plot you always meant to deal with. Another rewrite ensues. Which means another proofreading is required etc. And if you’re not careful, this circle can go on ad infinitum. It’s akin to owning property – there’s always some job or another waiting to be done. Wasn’t it Leonardo da Vinci who said ‘No work of art is ever complete, only abandoned’? Well, at some point you either abandon it or you go insane. I reached that point a week or so before Christmas – abandoning it, I mean, not going insane although my family might have you think different. Eventually I forced myself to let go although I could still see areas for improvement in the text.
And don’t even talk to me about the book cover. Another source of anxiety and procrastination. I’d always had it in mind to make the cover image the reproduction of a child’s drawing. This comes from a scene in the central part of the book in which Frank, the main protagonist, sets something down on paper in his first year at school that effectively describes his life and his fears. It goes to the heart of what the book is about. Great material for the cover, you’d think – until you actually have to do the drawing yourself. Imitating what a five/six year old can do naturally isn’t easy (on the right paper, with the right crayons) and at one point I found myself with 20/25 discarded attempts lying on the floor around me, none of which were quite what I wanted. Undaunted, I took them to a meeting of our local novelists support group where they received short shrift. A little miffed, I called in some help from my original publishers, Stairwell Books, well-known for their artwork, and got some good advice. Another dozen or so sketches and drawings later and I had what looked more like an idea for a cartoon series than a book cover. In desperation I turned to Shutterstock and selected an appropriate image, then presented all three versions to whoever showed up at my house for mince pies in the pre-Christmas period for adjudication. Unsurprisingly, the Shutterstock image won hands down. I returned my feeble attempts to their folder and settled for what was safe - but it had taken two more precious weeks.
Anyway, all done now and the files have been sent off to John Hunt. With luck, and no more glitches, I should see the book formally published in about six months time but with author copies available in the early spring. All of which means I’ve been able to relax a little over the Christmas period and enjoy a few mince pies of my own. Things can at last return to normal – whatever that is – and I can start planning for what comes next. After two years hard work, worry and all this anguish over THE BURDEN, there’s really only one thing I can do – and that’s start writing another novel. Work on MÄLAREN begins tomorrow. My family can hardly wait.
It’s some considerable time since I visited these pages. Far too long in fact. Worse still, I’ve really had nothing to say. Other than my newsletter of late October there’s been nothing posted here since my two articles about the publishing industry back in September. What on earth have I been doing, I ask myself? The answer, it seems, is fairly simple. Having had the go ahead from John Hunt, I became obsessed with preparing THE BURDEN for publication to the exclusion of all else. Fortunately, that task is now complete and hopefully I can move on.
In writing terms, the last four months have been conditioned by a single event. The York Festival of Writing was a watershed for me. I remember building it up in advance and telling myself that its outcome would decide things for the foreseeable future. How true that has been! Although whether it was as a natural result of the decisions that were made there or whether I was determined to make it so, I haven’t stopped to think. I’ve even had to go back to my papers and look up the piece of work I pitched as I’m sure it wasn’t THE BURDEN itself. That had already done the rounds some time before and accrued its allotted share of rejections. My principal objective at York was to attract an agent and I was using material from another work in progress, BOXED IN, to do it. When that failed (as the pessimist within me would say it was bound to) I reverted to Plan B and immediately sent THE BURDEN off to John Hunt. They responded within days (bless them) and I remember my yelp as their first (positive) reader review appeared on their website. I’ve been driven ever since, my head’s been in a cloud and it’s only now that I’ve come back down to earth.
Ok, so you’ve written your novel, slaved away over countless redrafts and a sizeable chunk of your life has disappeared while you were at it. Acceptance for publication is great and justifies your efforts – but there’s still a lot more work left to do. Take proofreading for example. No point in having your carefully constructed masterpiece spoilt in the hands of your reader by typos and poor layout. To do this properly can take weeks and it’s while you’re slowly reading through it that you discover that you never did straighten out those little glitches in the plot you always meant to deal with. Another rewrite ensues. Which means another proofreading is required etc. And if you’re not careful, this circle can go on ad infinitum. It’s akin to owning property – there’s always some job or another waiting to be done. Wasn’t it Leonardo da Vinci who said ‘No work of art is ever complete, only abandoned’? Well, at some point you either abandon it or you go insane. I reached that point a week or so before Christmas – abandoning it, I mean, not going insane although my family might have you think different. Eventually I forced myself to let go although I could still see areas for improvement in the text.
And don’t even talk to me about the book cover. Another source of anxiety and procrastination. I’d always had it in mind to make the cover image the reproduction of a child’s drawing. This comes from a scene in the central part of the book in which Frank, the main protagonist, sets something down on paper in his first year at school that effectively describes his life and his fears. It goes to the heart of what the book is about. Great material for the cover, you’d think – until you actually have to do the drawing yourself. Imitating what a five/six year old can do naturally isn’t easy (on the right paper, with the right crayons) and at one point I found myself with 20/25 discarded attempts lying on the floor around me, none of which were quite what I wanted. Undaunted, I took them to a meeting of our local novelists support group where they received short shrift. A little miffed, I called in some help from my original publishers, Stairwell Books, well-known for their artwork, and got some good advice. Another dozen or so sketches and drawings later and I had what looked more like an idea for a cartoon series than a book cover. In desperation I turned to Shutterstock and selected an appropriate image, then presented all three versions to whoever showed up at my house for mince pies in the pre-Christmas period for adjudication. Unsurprisingly, the Shutterstock image won hands down. I returned my feeble attempts to their folder and settled for what was safe - but it had taken two more precious weeks.
Anyway, all done now and the files have been sent off to John Hunt. With luck, and no more glitches, I should see the book formally published in about six months time but with author copies available in the early spring. All of which means I’ve been able to relax a little over the Christmas period and enjoy a few mince pies of my own. Things can at last return to normal – whatever that is – and I can start planning for what comes next. After two years hard work, worry and all this anguish over THE BURDEN, there’s really only one thing I can do – and that’s start writing another novel. Work on MÄLAREN begins tomorrow. My family can hardly wait.
October 26, 2014
BIRDS OF THE NILE - Publication Anniversary Newsletter
Dear All
Let me begin by apologising for the ‘circular’ nature of my letter but it seems like the best way of communicating with everyone at the same time. Believe it or not a year has passed since the publication of BIRDS OF THE NILE and I want to take the opportunity to report on what’s been happening.
Firstly I’d like to thank you for your support - for coming to my booklaunch, for attending my events, for inviting me to speak or simply for just being there.
The last 12 months have been extraordinarily busy and I don’t think I could have survived without the tremendous encouragement I’ve received. The amount of promotional work involved in getting a debut novel off the ground is phenomenal and takes up 80% of my time.
Since publication day I’ve travelled the length and breadth of Yorkshire (if not quite the country), appearing at a total of 14 Literature Festivals. The highlight was being invited to Kings Lynn Fiction Festival for the weekend where I was treated like royalty with my own chauffeur! I’ve also visited a similar number of writing groups to share my writing experiences. No chauffeurs, but I’ve been made very welcome all the same. I was also delighted to be the guest speaker at East Yorks RSPB AGM where I was able to meet up with many of my birding friends.
In York, besides being on the committee of the York Literature Festival, I continue to be a member of York Authors, an organisation set up to promote the work of professional writers in the city. And since the beginning of 2014, I’ve secured a spot on BBC Radio York where once a month I join presenter Elly Fiorentini in Book Talk to chat about the latest releases.
Small wonder I have any time to write! That however is still my biggest priority and I ensure I devote the first few hours of the day to it. The discipline has paid off and I’m pleased to be able to tell you that John Hunt Publishing has offered me a contract for a second novel. I’ve accepted and I expect to see THE BURDEN in bookshops some time next spring.
Meanwhile, I hope all is well with you and I look forward to seeing you again soon.
Best Wishes
Nick David
PS : If you want to keep up to date with what I’m doing on a regular basis you can always visit my website, www.nedavid.com, or you can contact me by email at n.e.david@btinternet.com.
Let me begin by apologising for the ‘circular’ nature of my letter but it seems like the best way of communicating with everyone at the same time. Believe it or not a year has passed since the publication of BIRDS OF THE NILE and I want to take the opportunity to report on what’s been happening.
Firstly I’d like to thank you for your support - for coming to my booklaunch, for attending my events, for inviting me to speak or simply for just being there.
The last 12 months have been extraordinarily busy and I don’t think I could have survived without the tremendous encouragement I’ve received. The amount of promotional work involved in getting a debut novel off the ground is phenomenal and takes up 80% of my time.
Since publication day I’ve travelled the length and breadth of Yorkshire (if not quite the country), appearing at a total of 14 Literature Festivals. The highlight was being invited to Kings Lynn Fiction Festival for the weekend where I was treated like royalty with my own chauffeur! I’ve also visited a similar number of writing groups to share my writing experiences. No chauffeurs, but I’ve been made very welcome all the same. I was also delighted to be the guest speaker at East Yorks RSPB AGM where I was able to meet up with many of my birding friends.
In York, besides being on the committee of the York Literature Festival, I continue to be a member of York Authors, an organisation set up to promote the work of professional writers in the city. And since the beginning of 2014, I’ve secured a spot on BBC Radio York where once a month I join presenter Elly Fiorentini in Book Talk to chat about the latest releases.
Small wonder I have any time to write! That however is still my biggest priority and I ensure I devote the first few hours of the day to it. The discipline has paid off and I’m pleased to be able to tell you that John Hunt Publishing has offered me a contract for a second novel. I’ve accepted and I expect to see THE BURDEN in bookshops some time next spring.
Meanwhile, I hope all is well with you and I look forward to seeing you again soon.
Best Wishes
Nick David
PS : If you want to keep up to date with what I’m doing on a regular basis you can always visit my website, www.nedavid.com, or you can contact me by email at n.e.david@btinternet.com.
October 3, 2014
The Future of Publishing – Part Two
3 October 2014
Last time, I looked at the distribution chain for a printed book sold through bookshops as opposed to a self-published ebook and questioned how the price of the first might be justified compared to that of the other. In particular, I highlighted the role of agents, publishers and bookshops themselves whose presence, unlike that of printers and distributors, is not strictly necessary to the process of selling a printed book. I asked what value they added and suggested they need to look carefully at the role they play in the distributive chain rather that simply telling us we should all buy our books in a bookshop instead of from Amazon.
Let’s start with agents. Their principal role is as gatekeepers, filtering out the dross and using their expertise to ensure that only books that will ‘sell’ enter the system ie. books that the reading public want to read. In doing so they are providing a service as they are saving the reader the time and effort required to find these books for themselves. Agents typically receive a hundred manuscripts a week. Imagine having to leaf through all that lot to find something you want. And they don’t always get it right - it can be very hit and miss.
There are no agents for self-pubbed ebooks. A lot of authors go down this route because they got turned down by agents or because they couldn’t be bothered with them in the first place. There’s a lot of dross out there (trust me) so how does the online reader find what they want? By word of mouth, recommendation and by looking at the reader reviews on Amazon and books sites like Goodreads. In other words they surf the online bookshop. Occasionally they turn up a gem that the agents have missed. If I were a publisher, I’d be keeping a very close eye on the ebook market with a view to picking up books with a proven track record online and turning them into bestsellers in print, cutting out the agent in the process. As more and more readers use their computer to find their reading material so the value of the agent will diminish.
The publisher is one more means of validating a book for the reader. By publishing it, the publisher is saying it’s fit for purpose ie. of good quality and it meets our needs. We look to our publishers to perform this task for us. More importantly, they are responsible for setting the RRP (Recommended Retail Price) which, in theory, establishes their return. I say in theory as they appear to have lost control of this important function and given it over to Amazon. Amazon, it seems, can sell at whatever price they like. The price to the public of my own book BIRDS OF THE NILE varies greatly online. This is fine – or it would be if the return to the publisher were constant, but I don’t think it is. I may be wrong but I believe the nature of Amazon’s contract with a publisher is for a fixed percentage of the sale price, a situation which allows Amazon to drive down the publisher’s profits at will. The publisher of my short novellas, Stairwell Books, have declined to put their print books on Amazon because they fear that Amazon’s discounting practices will undercut their margins to the extent that they will actually incur losses. This, they say, is Amazon’s game plan – to put them and others like them out of business and then move into the space that’s been vacated. A higher profile example is the current spat between Amazon and Hachette over the price of their ebooks. The whole industry is holding its breath over that one.
I can’t see how a situation where Amazon can have unlimited access to a publisher’s output and also dictate the price they buy it at is either fair or sustainable. Publishers have got to fight back. Either they renegotiate the nature of their contract with Amazon and instead of accepting a fixed percentage they receive a fixed price, or they withdraw their books altogether from sale through Amazon and make them available via their own online outlets or sell them through bookshops. If they don’t, there’s a danger that it’s not just bookshops that will go out of business, but publishers as well. Some consolidation has already started taking place amongst the major players.
And what of bookshops themselves? What service do they provide? Many retailers today are focussing on the ‘shopping experience’. They know that what they sell can be bought cheaper online but they maintain a High Street presence because as consumers we like the ‘touchy, feely’ vibe that a shop can give us. We like to browse and to be made to feel more comfortable about our choices by making them in pleasant surroundings. Bookshops these days have things Amazon can’t give us eg. the opportunity to handle a precious object, cafés and real, live author events. How can they turn these tangible advantages into custom and prevent their potential buyers from going home and ordering online at a lower price?
I faced a similar problem as a Financial Consultant when it came to the sale of Life Assurance. I represented a company which was a household name and carried with it the promise of quality. I gave my clients ‘advice’ that came not only from the extensive training I had received but also from the years of experience I had accumulated. I visited clients in their own homes and at their own convenience. I liked to think they trusted me and valued my involvement. These were the benefits I provided them with. But I was only too well aware that despite all the time and effort I might have invested on their particular case, they could accept my advice and then obtain exactly the same product online at a lower price. Since I was a commission-only agent, my livelihood depended on me making the sale and I was fortunate enough to be able to convince enough people of my worth.
I could ‘close’, but unless the agents, publishers and bookshops start to think more radically about their place in the publishing process, its worth and how they ‘sell’ it, so could they – albeit in an entirely different way.
Last time, I looked at the distribution chain for a printed book sold through bookshops as opposed to a self-published ebook and questioned how the price of the first might be justified compared to that of the other. In particular, I highlighted the role of agents, publishers and bookshops themselves whose presence, unlike that of printers and distributors, is not strictly necessary to the process of selling a printed book. I asked what value they added and suggested they need to look carefully at the role they play in the distributive chain rather that simply telling us we should all buy our books in a bookshop instead of from Amazon.
Let’s start with agents. Their principal role is as gatekeepers, filtering out the dross and using their expertise to ensure that only books that will ‘sell’ enter the system ie. books that the reading public want to read. In doing so they are providing a service as they are saving the reader the time and effort required to find these books for themselves. Agents typically receive a hundred manuscripts a week. Imagine having to leaf through all that lot to find something you want. And they don’t always get it right - it can be very hit and miss.
There are no agents for self-pubbed ebooks. A lot of authors go down this route because they got turned down by agents or because they couldn’t be bothered with them in the first place. There’s a lot of dross out there (trust me) so how does the online reader find what they want? By word of mouth, recommendation and by looking at the reader reviews on Amazon and books sites like Goodreads. In other words they surf the online bookshop. Occasionally they turn up a gem that the agents have missed. If I were a publisher, I’d be keeping a very close eye on the ebook market with a view to picking up books with a proven track record online and turning them into bestsellers in print, cutting out the agent in the process. As more and more readers use their computer to find their reading material so the value of the agent will diminish.
The publisher is one more means of validating a book for the reader. By publishing it, the publisher is saying it’s fit for purpose ie. of good quality and it meets our needs. We look to our publishers to perform this task for us. More importantly, they are responsible for setting the RRP (Recommended Retail Price) which, in theory, establishes their return. I say in theory as they appear to have lost control of this important function and given it over to Amazon. Amazon, it seems, can sell at whatever price they like. The price to the public of my own book BIRDS OF THE NILE varies greatly online. This is fine – or it would be if the return to the publisher were constant, but I don’t think it is. I may be wrong but I believe the nature of Amazon’s contract with a publisher is for a fixed percentage of the sale price, a situation which allows Amazon to drive down the publisher’s profits at will. The publisher of my short novellas, Stairwell Books, have declined to put their print books on Amazon because they fear that Amazon’s discounting practices will undercut their margins to the extent that they will actually incur losses. This, they say, is Amazon’s game plan – to put them and others like them out of business and then move into the space that’s been vacated. A higher profile example is the current spat between Amazon and Hachette over the price of their ebooks. The whole industry is holding its breath over that one.
I can’t see how a situation where Amazon can have unlimited access to a publisher’s output and also dictate the price they buy it at is either fair or sustainable. Publishers have got to fight back. Either they renegotiate the nature of their contract with Amazon and instead of accepting a fixed percentage they receive a fixed price, or they withdraw their books altogether from sale through Amazon and make them available via their own online outlets or sell them through bookshops. If they don’t, there’s a danger that it’s not just bookshops that will go out of business, but publishers as well. Some consolidation has already started taking place amongst the major players.
And what of bookshops themselves? What service do they provide? Many retailers today are focussing on the ‘shopping experience’. They know that what they sell can be bought cheaper online but they maintain a High Street presence because as consumers we like the ‘touchy, feely’ vibe that a shop can give us. We like to browse and to be made to feel more comfortable about our choices by making them in pleasant surroundings. Bookshops these days have things Amazon can’t give us eg. the opportunity to handle a precious object, cafés and real, live author events. How can they turn these tangible advantages into custom and prevent their potential buyers from going home and ordering online at a lower price?
I faced a similar problem as a Financial Consultant when it came to the sale of Life Assurance. I represented a company which was a household name and carried with it the promise of quality. I gave my clients ‘advice’ that came not only from the extensive training I had received but also from the years of experience I had accumulated. I visited clients in their own homes and at their own convenience. I liked to think they trusted me and valued my involvement. These were the benefits I provided them with. But I was only too well aware that despite all the time and effort I might have invested on their particular case, they could accept my advice and then obtain exactly the same product online at a lower price. Since I was a commission-only agent, my livelihood depended on me making the sale and I was fortunate enough to be able to convince enough people of my worth.
I could ‘close’, but unless the agents, publishers and bookshops start to think more radically about their place in the publishing process, its worth and how they ‘sell’ it, so could they – albeit in an entirely different way.
September 29, 2014
The Future of Publishing – Part One
22 Sep 2014
So, Scotland has decided, the Scottish debate has ended and we can all return to more prosaic matters. Hmm ... somehow I don’t think so. Scotland’s devolved powers have still to be confirmed, the English cat is now out of the bag and we have a General Election to negotiate before the end of May next year. Politics suddenly looks interesting again.
But so does the future of the business I work in ie. publishing and as much as I would like to indulge myself and hold forth on constitutional affairs, this column is supposed to be about writing issues and things are equally as dramatic here. Last weekend I attended the Festival of Writing held at The University of York. So did around 400 other budding authors and a considerable number of agents and editors. It’s one of the biggest conventions of its kind in the country and besides enabling writers to benefit from the top-class workshops on offer and pitch their work directly to influential people, it’s also an opportunity to catch up with the latest trends in the industry. First up on the Sunday morning was a panel discussion on The Future of Publishing. You can’t afford to rest at these events and despite a late finish for many after the Gala Dinner the night before, the lecture theatre was packed with delegates anxious to hear what might lie in store.
The principal drivers in publishing at present are the advent of electronic reading devices and the inexorable rise of Amazon as a distributor. The discussion panel consisted of a children’s book editor, two agents and a gentleman whose livelihood revolved around the publishing of ebooks (no surprises as to where his sympathies lay). One thing they all seemed fairly agreed on – ebooks have stabilised at around 40% of the market, a figure confirmed by my own publisher. This means that the printed book will still survive. Certain books are not suited to the e format and unlikely to be so for the foreseeable future, children’s books for instance and those publications which are heavily dependant on lavish illustrations, the kind we like to display on our coffee tables. It’s also reasonable to assume that many novels will still be printed as many of us like the touch and feel of a book.
The next question then is where will we be able to obtain them? The answer seems to be Amazon, a conclusion that most in the publishing industry find unpalatable. But even here the panel appeared united in admitting that Amazon is an amazingly efficient online distributor both in terms of its cost and its service – it ‘delivers’ the books we want at low prices, quickly and directly to our door. What more could consumers want? Exactly, which is why the conventional bricks and mortar book industry needs to think through its response far more carefully than it has done so far. To tell us that ‘we must support bookshops’ by insisting on purchasing from them, as advocated by one of the panellists, is to hide one’s head in the sand and remain in denial. Fine for those who are passionate enough about the physical book to put their hands deep into their pockets but that wont wash with the general book-buying public. These are the people who quite understandably browse their way round Waterstones for their ‘touchy-feely’ experience and then go home and order what they want online at considerably less price. Try telling them that their Christmas shopping expedition is going to cost them an extra £20 or so for the half dozen volumes they’re planning on putting in stockings if they’re loyal to their bookshop. It all smacks of King Canute trying to hold back the onrushing tide - take that line and you’ll get swept away. At some point in time of course, the bookshop will no longer exist and the consumer will be denied their browsing experience - but by then it will be too late and they can still get what they want from Amazon anyway.
So, unless something dramatic happens, Amazon’s going to rule the publishing world (and possibly some others besides). They already dominate the distribution of ebooks and seem set to do the same for the printed version. At present this suits the consumer but a monopoly situation like that is never going to be good in the longer term. Once they’ve captured the market, prices will inevitably go up, the good service we’ve enjoyed up until now will cease and the benefits we currently enjoy from bookshops will disappear. What can be done about it? Rather than the unrealistic solution offered by my panellist, here’s my own line of thinking.
Firstly, let’s look at the chain of distribution in publishing. I’ll begin with the assumption that an author wants to write a book and a reader wants to read one and is prepared to pay to do so. In other words we have the basis for a market. What readers are prepared to pay for this privilege is an issue. So is whether authors wish to earn a living from their writing. The large majority will understand that they cannot but continue, like me, because they have something to say or because they do it for the love of their craft.
The distribution chain for conventional bricks and mortar publishing is as follows. The author engages an agent who sells the idea of the book to a publisher. If so persuaded, the publisher uses a printer, the book is sent to a distributor who passes it on to a bookshop who (eventually) sells it to the reader. A long and complicated process. Compare this with the distribution chain for a self-published ebook. An author puts their book onto Amazon KDP and a reader downloads it. No wonder all the middlemen are panicking. The distribution chain for the self-published print version is not much longer and merely adds the services of a printer. Companies like Lulu and Smashwords, together with the advent of print on demand, make all this comparatively easy. It’s not rocket science and any author who sets their mind to it can get their book ‘out there’ in both print and e versions in a short space of time, something Amazon is happy to help them with. More and more books are being self-published and the market is becoming flooded with cheap, and quite often poor, literature. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
What becomes clear in all this is that rather than assume a right to their position, the middlemen need to think carefully about what value they are adding to the distribution chain, how much the reader is prepared to pay for their services and how that service is communicated and delivered to the reader. These are the basic principles of marketing. In other words, when a reader buys a hardback book in a bookshop for £19.99 what are they getting that they can’t get in a ebook from Amazon at £1.99?
If my panellists are right and the printed book does have a future, then so do printers and probably distributors (unless print on demand takes over). Their services are well-defined and don’t concern us here. It’s the agents, publishers and bookshops who are the problem and that’s where we should focus our attention.
Next time, in Part Two, I’m going to look at each of these areas in turn and establish exactly what it is that they’re contributing that costs us all that extra.
So, Scotland has decided, the Scottish debate has ended and we can all return to more prosaic matters. Hmm ... somehow I don’t think so. Scotland’s devolved powers have still to be confirmed, the English cat is now out of the bag and we have a General Election to negotiate before the end of May next year. Politics suddenly looks interesting again.
But so does the future of the business I work in ie. publishing and as much as I would like to indulge myself and hold forth on constitutional affairs, this column is supposed to be about writing issues and things are equally as dramatic here. Last weekend I attended the Festival of Writing held at The University of York. So did around 400 other budding authors and a considerable number of agents and editors. It’s one of the biggest conventions of its kind in the country and besides enabling writers to benefit from the top-class workshops on offer and pitch their work directly to influential people, it’s also an opportunity to catch up with the latest trends in the industry. First up on the Sunday morning was a panel discussion on The Future of Publishing. You can’t afford to rest at these events and despite a late finish for many after the Gala Dinner the night before, the lecture theatre was packed with delegates anxious to hear what might lie in store.
The principal drivers in publishing at present are the advent of electronic reading devices and the inexorable rise of Amazon as a distributor. The discussion panel consisted of a children’s book editor, two agents and a gentleman whose livelihood revolved around the publishing of ebooks (no surprises as to where his sympathies lay). One thing they all seemed fairly agreed on – ebooks have stabilised at around 40% of the market, a figure confirmed by my own publisher. This means that the printed book will still survive. Certain books are not suited to the e format and unlikely to be so for the foreseeable future, children’s books for instance and those publications which are heavily dependant on lavish illustrations, the kind we like to display on our coffee tables. It’s also reasonable to assume that many novels will still be printed as many of us like the touch and feel of a book.
The next question then is where will we be able to obtain them? The answer seems to be Amazon, a conclusion that most in the publishing industry find unpalatable. But even here the panel appeared united in admitting that Amazon is an amazingly efficient online distributor both in terms of its cost and its service – it ‘delivers’ the books we want at low prices, quickly and directly to our door. What more could consumers want? Exactly, which is why the conventional bricks and mortar book industry needs to think through its response far more carefully than it has done so far. To tell us that ‘we must support bookshops’ by insisting on purchasing from them, as advocated by one of the panellists, is to hide one’s head in the sand and remain in denial. Fine for those who are passionate enough about the physical book to put their hands deep into their pockets but that wont wash with the general book-buying public. These are the people who quite understandably browse their way round Waterstones for their ‘touchy-feely’ experience and then go home and order what they want online at considerably less price. Try telling them that their Christmas shopping expedition is going to cost them an extra £20 or so for the half dozen volumes they’re planning on putting in stockings if they’re loyal to their bookshop. It all smacks of King Canute trying to hold back the onrushing tide - take that line and you’ll get swept away. At some point in time of course, the bookshop will no longer exist and the consumer will be denied their browsing experience - but by then it will be too late and they can still get what they want from Amazon anyway.
So, unless something dramatic happens, Amazon’s going to rule the publishing world (and possibly some others besides). They already dominate the distribution of ebooks and seem set to do the same for the printed version. At present this suits the consumer but a monopoly situation like that is never going to be good in the longer term. Once they’ve captured the market, prices will inevitably go up, the good service we’ve enjoyed up until now will cease and the benefits we currently enjoy from bookshops will disappear. What can be done about it? Rather than the unrealistic solution offered by my panellist, here’s my own line of thinking.
Firstly, let’s look at the chain of distribution in publishing. I’ll begin with the assumption that an author wants to write a book and a reader wants to read one and is prepared to pay to do so. In other words we have the basis for a market. What readers are prepared to pay for this privilege is an issue. So is whether authors wish to earn a living from their writing. The large majority will understand that they cannot but continue, like me, because they have something to say or because they do it for the love of their craft.
The distribution chain for conventional bricks and mortar publishing is as follows. The author engages an agent who sells the idea of the book to a publisher. If so persuaded, the publisher uses a printer, the book is sent to a distributor who passes it on to a bookshop who (eventually) sells it to the reader. A long and complicated process. Compare this with the distribution chain for a self-published ebook. An author puts their book onto Amazon KDP and a reader downloads it. No wonder all the middlemen are panicking. The distribution chain for the self-published print version is not much longer and merely adds the services of a printer. Companies like Lulu and Smashwords, together with the advent of print on demand, make all this comparatively easy. It’s not rocket science and any author who sets their mind to it can get their book ‘out there’ in both print and e versions in a short space of time, something Amazon is happy to help them with. More and more books are being self-published and the market is becoming flooded with cheap, and quite often poor, literature. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
What becomes clear in all this is that rather than assume a right to their position, the middlemen need to think carefully about what value they are adding to the distribution chain, how much the reader is prepared to pay for their services and how that service is communicated and delivered to the reader. These are the basic principles of marketing. In other words, when a reader buys a hardback book in a bookshop for £19.99 what are they getting that they can’t get in a ebook from Amazon at £1.99?
If my panellists are right and the printed book does have a future, then so do printers and probably distributors (unless print on demand takes over). Their services are well-defined and don’t concern us here. It’s the agents, publishers and bookshops who are the problem and that’s where we should focus our attention.
Next time, in Part Two, I’m going to look at each of these areas in turn and establish exactly what it is that they’re contributing that costs us all that extra.
September 8, 2014
Why Do Writers Write?
8 Sep 2014
I regularly buy The Daily Telegraph – once a week, on a Saturday. Not for its political opinions I hasten to add, I’d be just as happy to read The Independent, although I usually find Charles Moore’s views eminently sensible. No, I buy it primarily for the chance to do the Prize Crossword (I’m an avid fan) and because the Review section contains the week’s TV guide. The same Review also provides an ongoing insight into the world of books and after I’ve read the headlines this is the next thing I turn to. Last week’s edition proved particularly fruitful as it included a ten-page special on fiction about to be released this autumn, but what started out as a potential reading list turned into a major thought provoking exercise and may well change the way I work.
That September brings a slew of book launches comes as no surprise. Our sleepy summer is over and we have woken up to find that the children are back at school and Christmas is looming on the horizon. What better idea for a present than something to read. My interest however, lies in the fact that I need to keep up to date professionally plus I have two reviews every month to do for Book Talk and good material can be hard to find. Here were eight ready-made opportunities – and they were all in the genre I tend to inhabit ie. literary fiction. I emerged from my Sunday morning perusal with two distinct possibilities, one maybe, five definite rejections and the nagging question as to why I had made these particular choices and why these writers had chosen to write what they did.
As we know, what appeals to us in literary terms is a very individual thing – one man’s meat etc. – and what resonates with me will not necessarily suit someone else. I have never been able to get to grips with Martin Amis or Will Self for instance, either in terms of style or content, so THE ZONE OF INTEREST and SHARK were not for me. I avoid anything futuristic so Howard Jacobson’s J and David Mitchell’s THE BONE CLOCKS also fell by the wayside. As for Ali Smith (HOW TO BE BOTH), her novel involves duality of both gender and time, ‘in the best modernist tradition’ I was told. So much so that it will apparently be a matter of chance as to which narrative readers will encounter first – half the copies of her book are published in one order, half in the other. Hmm ... I confess to having an interest in ‘the modernist tradition’ if only to compare it with trends in the art world and I intend that to be the subject of a separate piece, but I don’t think I actually want to read the book.
So what do I want to read? I’m always intrigued by Ian McEwan so THE CHILDREN ACT is on my list. I’ve never read Sarah Waters but THE PAYING GUESTS sounds good. I seem to recall that an earlier work of hers, THE LITTLE STRANGER, is on a bookshelf somewhere so that might provide a good introduction to her style. My one maybe is Rachel Cusk and OUTLINE, the reason being that the book is a series of conversations designed to show how self-effacing its narrator (and presumably modern womanhood) can be. And since this is a conceit that is bound to annoy me, it’s probably best avoided.
I am at least clear as to why I made these choices. They are all realistic (nothing surreal or futuristic here), they all deal with human relationships and they are all reasonably contemporary ie. set within this or the last century. The reason I am drawn to such books, I have discovered, is that they might help explain the world as it is to me. But is that why the authors wrote them? Did they set out with that particular intention or did it just happen accidentally? What caused them to choose their time, place and subject? Why do they write what they do? Why indeed do they write at all?
The critics usually take delight in implying some kind of purpose to these things. Why else would critics exist? THE CHILDREN ACT is alleged to be a thinly-disguised tirade against religion. Sarah Waters is known for inserting lesbianism into contexts where it has previously been impossible to do so, while Rachel Cusk’s work is held to be blatantly autobiographical. Whether this was what the respective authors set out to achieve when they wrote their books is open to question. Perhaps there were psychological factors at work. Maybe they just had something on their minds, wanted to set it down on paper and decided to let the critics sort out what it was actually about later on. In the introduction to my copy of THE SOUND AND THE FURY (William Faulkner) Richard Hughes tells the story of a celebrated Russian dancer who was asked what she meant by a certain dance. She answered with some exasperation, ‘If I could say it in so many words, do you think I should take the very great trouble of dancing it?’ Could things really be as simple as that?
Up until recently I thought I knew why I write. Firstly, it gives me purpose. Purpose is a wonderful thing. Without it we wither away, in every sense. Secondly, it’s a form of self-expression. It’s one of the ways I let myself, and others, know who I am and what I’m about. There are stories in my head I was (and still am) desperate to tell but I don’t necessarily know what they mean. I’ve said in my various biographical notes that my only intention was to entertain the reader and that I had no political or moral message to convey, or at least, none that I was aware of. More recently, and particularly in light of the above, I’ve come to think differently. Yes, my shorter works, the novellas, probably are pure entertainment but a serious novel like BIRDS OF THE NILE needs something more than that to sustain it. I came to realise, after it had been published, that it was in fact an exploration of the character of Michael Blake. I was still trying to entertain my audience because I needed them to continue reading but through the story I was telling I was hoping that they would ‘get’ him as a person. Now, when someone has read the book and tells me that they do, it’s a source of immense satisfaction. And I think I know why.
Michael Blake is clearly an extension of my own personality. I am a large part of him and he is a large part of me. So when someone tells me they understand him they are in effect saying that they understand me. So in just the same way that I read the books of other authors to try and understand their world, perhaps I write novels so that other people can try and understand mine. And if this puts me closer to Rachel Cusk than the rest, so be it.
Although my books are by no means intended to be autobiographical. I may be a keen bird-watcher and I may have been on a trip on the Nile, but I wasn’t caught up in the Egyptian revolution, I haven’t gone blind and I certainly didn’t fall in love with a Malaysian student half my age. My life informs my work rather than defines it, although I still can’t escape the thought that my own beliefs and feelings somehow seep into those of my protagonists and that however inadvertently, I am surreptitiously passing these on to my reader. If my reader can gain something from that, so much the better, but let me assure you, there is no deliberate message. There may well be one hidden in there somewhere, but like the Russian dancer, I’m not sure I know what it is.
One day a critic might read my work (I wish!) and tell me what my books are about and what it is I’ve been trying to say – the literary equivalent of a visit to a psychiatrist if you like. In the meanwhile, I know enough about things to conclude that I should cease this pretence that my books are merely entertainment and get on and change my biography.
I regularly buy The Daily Telegraph – once a week, on a Saturday. Not for its political opinions I hasten to add, I’d be just as happy to read The Independent, although I usually find Charles Moore’s views eminently sensible. No, I buy it primarily for the chance to do the Prize Crossword (I’m an avid fan) and because the Review section contains the week’s TV guide. The same Review also provides an ongoing insight into the world of books and after I’ve read the headlines this is the next thing I turn to. Last week’s edition proved particularly fruitful as it included a ten-page special on fiction about to be released this autumn, but what started out as a potential reading list turned into a major thought provoking exercise and may well change the way I work.
That September brings a slew of book launches comes as no surprise. Our sleepy summer is over and we have woken up to find that the children are back at school and Christmas is looming on the horizon. What better idea for a present than something to read. My interest however, lies in the fact that I need to keep up to date professionally plus I have two reviews every month to do for Book Talk and good material can be hard to find. Here were eight ready-made opportunities – and they were all in the genre I tend to inhabit ie. literary fiction. I emerged from my Sunday morning perusal with two distinct possibilities, one maybe, five definite rejections and the nagging question as to why I had made these particular choices and why these writers had chosen to write what they did.
As we know, what appeals to us in literary terms is a very individual thing – one man’s meat etc. – and what resonates with me will not necessarily suit someone else. I have never been able to get to grips with Martin Amis or Will Self for instance, either in terms of style or content, so THE ZONE OF INTEREST and SHARK were not for me. I avoid anything futuristic so Howard Jacobson’s J and David Mitchell’s THE BONE CLOCKS also fell by the wayside. As for Ali Smith (HOW TO BE BOTH), her novel involves duality of both gender and time, ‘in the best modernist tradition’ I was told. So much so that it will apparently be a matter of chance as to which narrative readers will encounter first – half the copies of her book are published in one order, half in the other. Hmm ... I confess to having an interest in ‘the modernist tradition’ if only to compare it with trends in the art world and I intend that to be the subject of a separate piece, but I don’t think I actually want to read the book.
So what do I want to read? I’m always intrigued by Ian McEwan so THE CHILDREN ACT is on my list. I’ve never read Sarah Waters but THE PAYING GUESTS sounds good. I seem to recall that an earlier work of hers, THE LITTLE STRANGER, is on a bookshelf somewhere so that might provide a good introduction to her style. My one maybe is Rachel Cusk and OUTLINE, the reason being that the book is a series of conversations designed to show how self-effacing its narrator (and presumably modern womanhood) can be. And since this is a conceit that is bound to annoy me, it’s probably best avoided.
I am at least clear as to why I made these choices. They are all realistic (nothing surreal or futuristic here), they all deal with human relationships and they are all reasonably contemporary ie. set within this or the last century. The reason I am drawn to such books, I have discovered, is that they might help explain the world as it is to me. But is that why the authors wrote them? Did they set out with that particular intention or did it just happen accidentally? What caused them to choose their time, place and subject? Why do they write what they do? Why indeed do they write at all?
The critics usually take delight in implying some kind of purpose to these things. Why else would critics exist? THE CHILDREN ACT is alleged to be a thinly-disguised tirade against religion. Sarah Waters is known for inserting lesbianism into contexts where it has previously been impossible to do so, while Rachel Cusk’s work is held to be blatantly autobiographical. Whether this was what the respective authors set out to achieve when they wrote their books is open to question. Perhaps there were psychological factors at work. Maybe they just had something on their minds, wanted to set it down on paper and decided to let the critics sort out what it was actually about later on. In the introduction to my copy of THE SOUND AND THE FURY (William Faulkner) Richard Hughes tells the story of a celebrated Russian dancer who was asked what she meant by a certain dance. She answered with some exasperation, ‘If I could say it in so many words, do you think I should take the very great trouble of dancing it?’ Could things really be as simple as that?
Up until recently I thought I knew why I write. Firstly, it gives me purpose. Purpose is a wonderful thing. Without it we wither away, in every sense. Secondly, it’s a form of self-expression. It’s one of the ways I let myself, and others, know who I am and what I’m about. There are stories in my head I was (and still am) desperate to tell but I don’t necessarily know what they mean. I’ve said in my various biographical notes that my only intention was to entertain the reader and that I had no political or moral message to convey, or at least, none that I was aware of. More recently, and particularly in light of the above, I’ve come to think differently. Yes, my shorter works, the novellas, probably are pure entertainment but a serious novel like BIRDS OF THE NILE needs something more than that to sustain it. I came to realise, after it had been published, that it was in fact an exploration of the character of Michael Blake. I was still trying to entertain my audience because I needed them to continue reading but through the story I was telling I was hoping that they would ‘get’ him as a person. Now, when someone has read the book and tells me that they do, it’s a source of immense satisfaction. And I think I know why.
Michael Blake is clearly an extension of my own personality. I am a large part of him and he is a large part of me. So when someone tells me they understand him they are in effect saying that they understand me. So in just the same way that I read the books of other authors to try and understand their world, perhaps I write novels so that other people can try and understand mine. And if this puts me closer to Rachel Cusk than the rest, so be it.
Although my books are by no means intended to be autobiographical. I may be a keen bird-watcher and I may have been on a trip on the Nile, but I wasn’t caught up in the Egyptian revolution, I haven’t gone blind and I certainly didn’t fall in love with a Malaysian student half my age. My life informs my work rather than defines it, although I still can’t escape the thought that my own beliefs and feelings somehow seep into those of my protagonists and that however inadvertently, I am surreptitiously passing these on to my reader. If my reader can gain something from that, so much the better, but let me assure you, there is no deliberate message. There may well be one hidden in there somewhere, but like the Russian dancer, I’m not sure I know what it is.
One day a critic might read my work (I wish!) and tell me what my books are about and what it is I’ve been trying to say – the literary equivalent of a visit to a psychiatrist if you like. In the meanwhile, I know enough about things to conclude that I should cease this pretence that my books are merely entertainment and get on and change my biography.
September 4, 2014
The Author As Character
As those who regularly read my column will know, I often take part in Literary Festivals and give talks to writing groups. One of the seminars I present is entitled ‘The Modern Author – A Skill Set for the 21st Century’. In it I argue that it’s no longer enough merely to write a good novel but that for those who inhabit the lower echelons of the literary world, it’s also essential to promote yourself. In an article he wrote in advance of last year’s Hay Festival even self-confessed middle-ranking author Will Self admitted as much. Faced with a choice of candidates for publication, today’s publisher is more likely to choose the one who is prepared to put themselves in front of the reading public, has a website, facebook page and an active twitter account with thousands of followers.
Recent events have caused me to take the argument one step further. I now believe that it’s not only necessary for The Modern Author to vigorously promote themselves but that in doing so they must also display character.
So what has caused this advancement in thought? Up until now, whenever I’ve been lucky enough to confront the reading public, I’ve been focussed primarily on my own performance. More recently I’ve been at a couple of events which have given me the opportunity to observe the performance of others and the response they created.
As an instance, in the middle of March I was lucky enough to be asked to appear at Kings Lynn Fiction Festival. At times I found myself amongst a panel of nine or so other authors and when attention was directed toward someone else I was able to study the audience and the reaction they displayed to particular individuals. What I noticed was that those who read well, spoke well and voiced positive opinions produced a far more active response than those who mumbled and effectively said nothing or were unintelligible. Well that’s no surprise, I hear you say. Exactly – which is why it’s odd that the people concerned hadn’t cottoned on to the fact and taken steps to do something about it.
Take reading for example. I say this because it strikes me as the simplest of these subjects to get right as it can easily be prepared for in advance. And yet how many of us practice our reading skills at home before appearing in public? Very few, I suspect. And speaking of preparation, how many open mics have you been to where someone gets up on stage and spends the first few crucial minutes searching through sheaves of grubby hand-written notepaper looking for what to read? Or, in an attempt to convince us of their up-to-date technology credentials produces a mobile phone to read from only to find it’s low on battery? And while Sad Syd rambles on I’m sure it’s in here somewhere the audience has already lost interest and moved on. Or perhaps I’m wrong and it’s thought ‘clever’ amongst creative types to appear disorganised and be the absent-minded professor of literature.
At the other end of the spectrum, I’ve also seen the confident reader, book-marked item in hand, ready to hold forth, only to lose their public yet again by prefacing the extract from their latest novel with a convoluted introduction which turns out to be longer than the piece they finally read. Why can’t they get it right?
At another festival I attended out of personal interest, the stage was occupied by an interviewer flanked by two contrasting authors. One was tidy, well-presented and confidently although softly spoken, while the other was untidy and dressed in sweat-shirt and jeans (with the emphasis on sweat, I hasten to add). And while the first made eye contact with the audience and listened appreciatively when his companion was speaking, the second totally ignored everyone else and spent most of his time staring up at the ceiling or down at the floor whilst biting his nails. He looked extremely uncomfortable with the whole idea of being there at all and seemed as if he couldn’t wait to get away. So much so that it was a topic of conversation amongst my fellow attendees afterwards. No prizes then for correctly guessing who had the longest queue for signings at the bookstall. And this totally irrespective of the merits or otherwise of their books. The potential saving grace for author number two was the fact that he was so clearly distressed (we thought he might slit his own throat at any moment) that this might be reflected in his work and give an edge to his fiction. Which merely serves to emphasize my point - rather that than have no character at all, I suppose.
We live in a world of celebrity and who you are has become just as important as what you do. Not that long ago we’d never heard of Maria Miller - but suddenly we were all familiar with her and it wasn't because of her political opinions. Most of us hadn’t a clue as to whether she was on the raving right or if she was a member of the lunatic left – all we cared about was that she’d been accused of fiddling her expenses and so whatever her thoughts and policies we were more disinclined to vote for her. As authors we should learn from this and make sure that our work isn’t ignored by our failure to behave acceptably in front of our audience.
I used to work as a waiter during my school holidays and long vacations. Amongst many other things I learnt that good food can be spoilt for the customer by presenting it poorly. So yes, The Modern Author doesn’t just have to write a good book and be active in promoting it – they also have to do it with a certain degree of style.
Recent events have caused me to take the argument one step further. I now believe that it’s not only necessary for The Modern Author to vigorously promote themselves but that in doing so they must also display character.
So what has caused this advancement in thought? Up until now, whenever I’ve been lucky enough to confront the reading public, I’ve been focussed primarily on my own performance. More recently I’ve been at a couple of events which have given me the opportunity to observe the performance of others and the response they created.
As an instance, in the middle of March I was lucky enough to be asked to appear at Kings Lynn Fiction Festival. At times I found myself amongst a panel of nine or so other authors and when attention was directed toward someone else I was able to study the audience and the reaction they displayed to particular individuals. What I noticed was that those who read well, spoke well and voiced positive opinions produced a far more active response than those who mumbled and effectively said nothing or were unintelligible. Well that’s no surprise, I hear you say. Exactly – which is why it’s odd that the people concerned hadn’t cottoned on to the fact and taken steps to do something about it.
Take reading for example. I say this because it strikes me as the simplest of these subjects to get right as it can easily be prepared for in advance. And yet how many of us practice our reading skills at home before appearing in public? Very few, I suspect. And speaking of preparation, how many open mics have you been to where someone gets up on stage and spends the first few crucial minutes searching through sheaves of grubby hand-written notepaper looking for what to read? Or, in an attempt to convince us of their up-to-date technology credentials produces a mobile phone to read from only to find it’s low on battery? And while Sad Syd rambles on I’m sure it’s in here somewhere the audience has already lost interest and moved on. Or perhaps I’m wrong and it’s thought ‘clever’ amongst creative types to appear disorganised and be the absent-minded professor of literature.
At the other end of the spectrum, I’ve also seen the confident reader, book-marked item in hand, ready to hold forth, only to lose their public yet again by prefacing the extract from their latest novel with a convoluted introduction which turns out to be longer than the piece they finally read. Why can’t they get it right?
At another festival I attended out of personal interest, the stage was occupied by an interviewer flanked by two contrasting authors. One was tidy, well-presented and confidently although softly spoken, while the other was untidy and dressed in sweat-shirt and jeans (with the emphasis on sweat, I hasten to add). And while the first made eye contact with the audience and listened appreciatively when his companion was speaking, the second totally ignored everyone else and spent most of his time staring up at the ceiling or down at the floor whilst biting his nails. He looked extremely uncomfortable with the whole idea of being there at all and seemed as if he couldn’t wait to get away. So much so that it was a topic of conversation amongst my fellow attendees afterwards. No prizes then for correctly guessing who had the longest queue for signings at the bookstall. And this totally irrespective of the merits or otherwise of their books. The potential saving grace for author number two was the fact that he was so clearly distressed (we thought he might slit his own throat at any moment) that this might be reflected in his work and give an edge to his fiction. Which merely serves to emphasize my point - rather that than have no character at all, I suppose.
We live in a world of celebrity and who you are has become just as important as what you do. Not that long ago we’d never heard of Maria Miller - but suddenly we were all familiar with her and it wasn't because of her political opinions. Most of us hadn’t a clue as to whether she was on the raving right or if she was a member of the lunatic left – all we cared about was that she’d been accused of fiddling her expenses and so whatever her thoughts and policies we were more disinclined to vote for her. As authors we should learn from this and make sure that our work isn’t ignored by our failure to behave acceptably in front of our audience.
I used to work as a waiter during my school holidays and long vacations. Amongst many other things I learnt that good food can be spoilt for the customer by presenting it poorly. So yes, The Modern Author doesn’t just have to write a good book and be active in promoting it – they also have to do it with a certain degree of style.
Writing Life
If you want to find out what a writer does each day, why not keep up to date with Writing Life.
- N.E. David's profile
- 67 followers
