L.E. Truscott's Blog, page 35

When Totally Sick Writing Is Literal, Not Colloquial

I probably shouldn’t be writing this. Not because I’m about to say something controversial. But because I’m sick.

On Monday morning I went to the dermatologist who diagnosed me with an allergy and prescribed a six-week course of antibiotics and ointments to rub on my face. On Monday afternoon I went to the dentist who told me that after months of trying, it looked like our attempts to save my very back upper left cracked molar had failed. So I agreed to have it pulled.

It hurt. Not the extraction, thanks to local anaesthesia. But the aftermath. I couldn’t eat or drink anything but that didn’t matter because I had no appetite.

On Tuesday morning I took Tabitha, the cat I am fostering along with her five kittens, to the vet to be desexed. I went home and went back to bed with a bag of frozen beans to soothe the incredible heat coming off my face and hopefully help reduce the swelling. On Tuesday afternoon the vet called to say the operation had gone well and I could come pick up Tabitha when it was convenient. I went straight away because the sooner I picked her up, the sooner I could go back to bed with some sort of frozen vegetables.

Tabitha was returned to me with a plastic collar around her neck and I was told I had to keep her separated from her kittens. Fat chance, I thought, but I didn’t say anything. I was in so much pain, I just wanted to go home. When I got there, I took the maximum amount of painkillers allowed and went back to bed. I still couldn’t eat.

On Wednesday I received a call from the dermatologist. He’d given me a blood test after I’d told him about a family history of autoimmune conditions and while I wasn’t positive for anything, one of the tests suggested I could be in the future. The antibiotics he’d prescribed had the potential to bring on autoimmune conditions so I couldn’t take them. I’d have to stay on the antibiotics prescribed by my GP. But I didn’t have any left.

So I trudged off to the pharmacy to get the old prescription refilled. I could barely talk or smile and when a friend called to chat while I was waiting, I had to cut her off and hang up. I stocked up on paracetamol and ibuprofen, got my antibiotics and went home. I ate mashed potato and gravy but in the past three days I’d had more pills than actual food.

To add insult to injury, the ointments the dermatologist had prescribed to soothe my allergic rash had the unfortunate side effect of making my face unbelievably itchy. When I didn’t have an ice pack on my face, I was using a hair brush with plastic tipped bristles to scratch my cheeks and forehead.

The pain should have started to let up on Thursday but it didn’t. I dosed up on pills and went to my mum’s to spend the day cooking with my sister. She likes the company but I could barely talk. I ate dinner with her – slowly – but left much earlier than I normally would. I dropped in to see my father on the way home to return a cooler I had borrowed. I tried to chat but I had to ask for a glass of water to talk more pain pills. I left shortly after.

The pain continued on Friday. And Saturday. And Sunday. Monday, one week after having the tooth pulled, I called the dentist who said she could see me in the afternoon. I went in, she numbed me up again and she poked and prodded until she pulled out a piece of bone or tooth the size of a sesame seed but with a very sharp point at one end. With every movement of my jaw, she explained, it had poked gums already sensitive from the extraction. Every time I drank, ate, swallowed pills, yawned, talked or involuntarily moved my mouth, I was causing myself pain.

It probably won’t come as any surprise when I tell you I didn’t write a thing all week. Although it feels like a wasted week, if I’d been working a full-time office job, I wouldn’t have worked all week either. I wouldn’t have begrudged not working. So why do I begrudge not being able to write?

I suppose when it’s something we want to be doing, then anything that prevents us from doing it is bemoaned. But writing, especially when you do it full time, is a job like any other. Sometimes you need to take physical health breaks and sometimes you need to take mental health breaks. All the platitudes about work-life balance apply to writing as well.

And even though it sounds strange, injuries can be sustained while writing as well.

“Work as a serious writer involves spending much time in a chair and in solitude,” says novelist Lynette McClenaghan. “At times I’ve relied heavily on physiotherapy and ensure that I include exercise to deal with and prevent back problems.”

Stress is just as much of an issue.

“Burnout is an occupational hazard,” according to writer Alison Croggon. “There’s no doubt that artists face particular issues, which are largely to do with the fact that so many work outside institutions, often alone, and have no structures to assist them or any kind of financial stability.”

Whatever your health issue – physical or mental – don’t ignore it. Don’t think you can just push through it. The quality – or lack thereof – of your writing will often reflect this if you do. Instead, take a break, get better and then get back into it in good health. An enforced timeout could be the best thing for you and you writing.

*First published in Project December: A Book about Writing

“Right,” Said Fred – But How Did He Say It?

I was reading the writing tips of a published author recently and amongst rather a lot of them was the advice that almost all dialogue attribution should use “said”. If the dialogue is a question, then “asked” is acceptable and if someone is responding, then “answered” is also okay. But nothing else. And even better, don’t use dialogue attribution at all.

Leaving aside questions of verb tense, I can’t tell you how much I disagree with this advice. Because while it tells me that a character was speaking, it gives no indication of how the character said the words. And often the words themselves just aren’t enough for me to know.

Consider the following:

“I love you,” she said. (Fairly straightforward, right? But how often is love straightforward?)

“I love you,” she whispered. (Doesn’t this convey vulnerability if she’s speaking to a romantic partner?)

“I love you,” she shouted. (Doesn’t this suggest strength or anger or maybe even distance?)

There are so many wonderful options for dialogue attribution and a conversation which continues with “he said, she said, he said, she said, he said, she said” eventually means the reader will start to skip words. (I was bored just reading that back to myself after writing it!)

I frequently have characters tell, point out, comment, admit, reveal, state, declare, ask, answer, assure, continue, enthuse, repeat, blurt, shout, yell, whisper, amend, add, query, caution, decide, agree, plea, nag and suggest among many others. It allows me to follow his other advice, which is never to use an adverb with dialogue attribution (such as “he said quickly”, “she said shortly”, “I said gravely” – I don’t hate adverbs the way some writers seem to because I believe every part of language is useful if used correctly and sparingly). I also use “say” but I don’t use it exclusively. It’s just too boring. For me as a writer and for the readers, too.

There are some efforts at dialogue attribution that annoy the hell out of me. I personally can’t stand it when characters “rasp” something – this seems to happen a lot in shorter romance fiction and it always seems to be coming from a man. It usually makes me want to get him a glass of water and pat him on the back until the frog in his throat disappears. But, on the other hand, it is a very clear description of speaking in a harsh way and sometimes difficulty in getting the words out – all without having to say the character spoke in a harsh way and had difficulty getting the words out.

Yet again it goes to show that just because you’ve made it, just because you’re published, just because you have a platform and a lot of people listening when you speak, it doesn’t mean you’re always right. Probably 95% of advice when it comes to writing is opinion and for everyone who says, “Don’t!” you will be able to find an equal number of counterparts who say, “Do!”

As long as you stick to the 5% that is non-negotiable and make informed decisions when it comes to the rest, don’t feel bad about ignoring the instructions of published authors. After all, they get it wrong almost as often as they get it right. They have editors to try to cover up this fact. And sometimes even that isn’t enough.

They can’t know it all. I can’t know it all. You can’t know it all. So don’t even pretend you do. You’ll just look like a fool.

*First published in Project December: A Book about Writing

Book Review: All That Is by James Salter

I’ve never read James Salter before. When I read the blurb, it didn’t seem like it would be the sort of book I would enjoy but I was seduced by the cover, a white background to a vortex of parallel ocean blue and metallic silver swirls. But I think we all know what they say about not judging a book by its cover.

All That Is is about Philip Bowman and being seduced by the cover is a good metaphor for him as a main character. He is intriguing to look at, as long as you don’t look too closely, because there is almost a sense of emptiness on the inside. The story starts in the Pacific where Bowman is serving in the navy at the end of World War II. It’s over in the blink of an eye, because that’s not what the story is about, and suddenly he’s back home, scheming his way into Harvard and wanting to fall in love.

Except that’s not what he really wants. Bowman wants sex. I don’t think the character ever really understood that about himself or the author ever really understood that about his character. But he’s shallow and obsessed with pleasure, and in the time period the story is set in, it’s not something that’s freely available.

The novel covers Bowman’s life from when he’s eighteen to when he’s about sixty, not that there’s much worth covering in Bowman’s life. He’s dull but thinks he’s sophisticated, especially when he’s having affairs. He’s heartless and there’s no evidence in the entire book that he ever really understands that love and relationships are about more than just him having what he wants. He is a boy his entire life and never truly grows into a man. He wonders what’s wrong with his life and doesn’t realise it’s him.

There is no narrative. Instead, it’s a list of characters. We get detailed descriptions of them, their appearances and the defining moments of their lives, pages and pages of it until we think maybe the story isn’t going to be about Bowman anymore and then he reappears and the supporting characters we were told so much about disappear. And then we move on to the next character. And the next. And the next. Bowman is the linking thread but the thread breaks with the weight of closer scrutiny.

Nothing happens in this book. I’ve said in a few of my previous reviews that the big three things readers look for in books to make them great are the writing, the plot and the characterisation. Plot is completely absent. Characterisation is absent as well. The book wasn’t hard to read, so there is something to Salter’s writing, but the style is pretentious, like it is trying to be literary and instead ends up inexplicable. In fact, there were several moments in the book that I found poetic – on the occasions I found them I stopped reading and rearranged them on the page and in my head into verses – but they were few and far between. And I actually stopped reading this book and read another book in its entirety in between before going back and finishing it. Hardly the mark of a great novel.

There are five quotes on the cover of this book, all by men. I suspect if the publisher had sought any from women, they would not have thought as highly of it as the men did. I don’t feel like this is a story or a character that women would, should or could appreciate. Despite declarations of love, Bowman never demonstrates he actually loves any of the women he becomes involved with and there are several instances of near rape, particularly with an eighteen-year-old he’s with briefly when he’s middle aged who says no repeatedly and squeezes her legs together but eventually gives in after Bowman’s relentless physical persistence. Romantic, huh? Worse than that, neither the character nor the author seem to realise that they’ve done anything wrong. There’s a selfishness to him, to it.

There’s also a strange homoerotic undercurrent running through the book, especially the sex scenes because he’s constantly flipping the women onto their stomachs as if that’s the only way he can sleep with them. And towards the very end he has a weird discussion with his latest companion about how he doesn’t like the word “gay”, how nobody ever called the Roman emperors gays even though they “swam naked in pools with young boys trained for pleasure”. It comes from nowhere and makes no sense.

I didn’t ever feel any empathy for Bowman and I didn’t feel he deserved any. He judged all women on their looks and whether they would sleep with him. He judged his father for abandoning him and his mother and marrying a handful of times, only to become something worse. He was completely emotionless, lacking in passion for everything in his life, his work, his relationships.

Don’t put any stock in the blurb because it’s what the book should have been rather than what it is. It’s not a “love story”. It’s not “romantic” or “haunting”. It’s not “dazzling” and it’s not “a fiercely intimate account” of anything. All of these descriptions were on the back cover.

Instead it’s disappointing. It’s the kind of literature that puts people off trying to read truly literary and important writing. I’d say it was as dull as watching paint dry but paint is more colourful. If this is “all that is”, there we’re in for very frustrating and ultimately pointless lives.

In a word: unworthy.

P.S. After I wrote and posted this review on Goodreads, as is my habit, I read through a selection of other people’s reviews to see what they had to say. I was shocked to learn that this novel was 30 years in the writing. Knowing that, I wanted to go back and change my rating to 1 star but I resisted. I can only judge a novel on the merits of the novel, not anything else. But seriously, it was this bad after 30 years of trying to get it right? Oh, well.

2 stars

*First published on Goodreads 10 January 2016

The Review From The Top: Should Published Writers Post Book Reviews?

“Don’t write reviews. Ever. That’s the work of specialist critics. Do what you do well – i.e. fiction writing – and stick to it. I mean, really, you want to review your friends and enemies in broadsheet newspapers???”

Novelist James Phelan (from jamesphelan.com.au/faq/)

“Reviewing is an important investment in my professional profile. I appreciate that people are time poor and even the most avid readers have a limited amount of time. Before a reader commits to purchasing my book, reviews ranging from 250-500 words are examples of my writing.”

Novelist Lynette McClenaghan (from “Staying Connected” in Issue 9, 2015 of The Victorian Writer)

For writers still learning the craft and the trade, it’s easy sometimes to become confused. Two diametrically opposed and conflicting pieces of advice from published authors like the ones above can be part of the reason why. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with this blog will know I post book reviews every Monday, so it’s clear which side of the divide I fall on. But does that make me (and Lynette) right?

Let’s look at the circumstances of the two writers above. James Phelan is a commercial fiction writer with seven adult novels and sixteen young adult novels, as well as a non-fiction book of interviews with Australian writers, editors and publishers under his belt. Lynette McClenaghan is the author of four novels, variously described as “dark”, “psychological”, “gothic”, “supernatural” and “horror”. Clearly their writing experiences are very different because everybody’s writing experiences are very different. (How many times have you met another writer who says, “Oh my God! That’s exactly the same thing that happened with my writing.” Never, that’s how many times.)

I suspect someone like James Phelan doesn’t really have the time to be reading books and posting lengthy book reviews so it’s easy for him to make his judgement of “who wants to review your friends and enemies in broadsheet newspapers???” Lynette McClenaghan, on the other hand, looks at “reviewing as a way to stay connected”.

Still we’re no closer to an answer on who is right. Possibly because, as with so many things when it comes to writing, there are so few black-and-white definites. What works for one writer may not work for another. Which is why, when I post advice for writers, I tend to use words like “tips”, “tricks” and “suggestions” and not “rules”, “laws” and “regulations”. I don’t know it all but I’m trying to help, trying to let my experiences if not guide others, then at least give them something to think about.

Why do I post book reviews? I started doing it in 2012 when I self-published my first novel, Enemies Closer. I was looking for ways to establish an online profile so in addition to joining Twitter, giving some interviews and doing some paid advertising, I also signed up to Goodreads. It was only later that I started my blog and decided to post them here as well as a way of collecting all my writing in one place.

Because whatever you might think of them, reviews are still examples of writing, just like Lynette McClenaghan says. I also think I have an interesting perspective given that I have trained and worked as both a writer and an editor, as well as being a reader. And just because I would like to be a little more on the other side – being read and reviewed more than I am reading and reviewing – doesn’t mean I should err on the side of not reviewing at all because it might hurt the feelings of my “friends and enemies”.

I like to think that most of my book reviews are balanced and don’t contain targeted attacks on writers (because writers are not their writing). Even if I don’t like a book, I try to find the positives and I try to deliver the message that I wasn’t a fan in a positive way and give reasoned arguments as to why. I hope I am achieving that.

Certainly, last year, when I reviewed Tracy Cembor’s novella Gaslight Carnival at her request, giving it 2.5 stars, I also gave her the option of not having the review published on Goodreads and my blog. But she seemed thrilled with it and promoted it on her own blog. This is an extract from the review (you can read the whole of it here):

“This is the first time I’ve ever reviewed a piece of fiction specifically at the request of the author. Now I realise there is a temptation to be kinder than I might ordinarily be because of that small personal connection. I don’t know Tracy but she reached out to me, no doubt in the hope that I would have all positive things to say.

“The best I can do is half positive, half negative (which accounts for the 2.5 star rating – normally I rate according to the Goodreads system, which doesn’t allow for half stars, but I genuinely believed that Gaslight Carnival deserved it).

“The positive half first – the novella displays the bones of a very good idea and the way Tracy Cembor has written the second task Margo has to perform drew me into the scene in the best possible way. It was the most evocative and interesting part of the novella. The character of Rook was so endearing, I wanted more of him. And I genuinely believe that fans of Samantha Shannon could easily be fans of Tracy Cembor.

“The negative half now – despite the bones of a very good idea, there is very little flesh on them. I suspect that this story – which easily contains enough characters and ideas for a novel – is a novella because the author isn’t ready to commit to and develop a more complex narrative.”

I know some people and websites who review books have a policy of only posting reviews of work they consider worthy of three, four or five star ratings but I don’t subscribe to that. If you are prepared to put your writing out into the big wide world, you have to also be prepared for the reactions to it. I’ve written previously about the one star rating I received on Goodreads. There’s no hiding it. It’s there for all to see.

I’ve also previously written about the five star rating and review I posted for Tara Moss’s The Fictional Woman. The author herself liked my Goodreads review. The author herself! Someone who wrote something I thought was fantastic thought that something I wrote was fantastic, too. If I’d never written and posted that review, it would never have happened.

The truth is that we can’t all be successful and well-paid fiction writers, no matter how much we aim for and aspire to it. But content is a growing market. The world needs writers. Maybe one day I’ll get my reviews in front of someone who says, “We like the way you review and we want to publish them and pay you for it.” It’s not quite the same as having someone deliver a three-book publishing contract, but I’d still be tickled pink. Sometimes dreams don’t happen quite as you want them to. You have to be open to tangents.

But I’m still writing. I will continue posting reviews. Maybe I will get that publishing contract. Maybe I will become so busy that I don’t have time to write and post reviews anymore. Either way, it’s my choice.

And that’s my ultimate advice to all writers. Do whatever it is you feel comfortable doing. It doesn’t mean you will be successful. It doesn’t mean everyone else will like what you are doing. But I suspect you will be happier than if you were doing something that made you feel uncomfortable.

Write. Review. Don’t review. Publish. Don’t publish. It’s up to you.

*First published in Project December: A Book about Writing

Why Fracking Committees Shouldn’t Be In Charge of Words And Language

Each year, various dictionaries judge and announce a “word of the year” or several “words of the year”. Sometimes these are new words, sometimes they are old words that got a good work-out during the year in question. I’m a fan of new words because they demonstrate something I try to tell people who don’t like what they consider the destruction of the English language: and that is that English, like all languages except dead ones, is constantly evolving. And while pedants don’t like this evolution, it has one significant positive aspect. It means that the language is continuing on. In an era of globalisation when linguists worry about multitudes of languages dying out, that has to be a good thing.

In the last few years, the Collins Dictionary words of the year have been “binge-watch” (2015), “photobomb” (2014) and “geek” (2013). In 2014, Chambers Dictionary announced “overshare” as its word of the year. Macquarie Dictionary, an Australian English dictionary, allows people to vote for their word of the year and then chooses one by committee as well. Here are the committee’s choices:

2014 – mansplain

2013 – infovore

2012 – phantom vibration syndrome

2011 – burqini

2010 – googleganger

2009 – shovel-ready

2008 – toxic debt

2007 – pod slurping

And here are the people’s choices:

2014 – shareplate

2013 – onesie

2012 – First World problem

2011 – fracking

2010 – shockumentary

2009 – tweet

2008 – flashpacker

2007 – password fatigue

And the winner is… the people, clearly. Some of the committee’s choices I’ve never heard of and the others are all jargon or buzz-words or things that can frequently be heard coming from the mouths of politicians, which is enough of a condemnation in itself. On the other hand, the people’s choices are all words I’ve heard of and used (with the exception of flashpacker – we can’t always be right) and which continue to have relevance to this day. If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then… well, you get the idea.

The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary outlines the various different ways in which new words are created including borrowing from other languages, acronymic formations, functional shifts, blending two words, combining word elements, imitation of sounds, the transfer of personal or place names, fore-clipping and back-clipping (the shortening of words by removing syllables at the front or back of the word) and folk etymology (it kind of sounds like another word already in the language so it morphs into that and takes on a new meaning). But perhaps the most important is literary and creative coinage.

William Shakespeare is credited with inventing and/or popularising over 1,700 words now in everyday use including majestic, unreal, laughable, champion, equivocal and submerge. He did this by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes to existing words, and simply making up entirely new expressions. When you look at the samples above, you can almost see how he did it. Majestic from majesty, unreal from real, submerge from merge. Sometimes the simplicity of genius is even more astounding than the complexity of it.

These days the writers of fantasy, dystopian and science fiction are the ones leading the way in the literary invention of new words. The 2011 Macquarie Dictionary people’s choice of “fracking” as word of the year would already have been familiar to fans of those genres. Because “frack” is the swear word of choice in the Battlestar Galactica universe. Yes, it means something different if you’re talking about coal seam gas exploration, a shortened form of “fracturing” but the controversial nature of the practise and the ease with which it has now taken on negative connotations surely has a little something to do with its alternative use.

The invention of new words is an awesome responsibility in both senses of the word – wonderful and overwhelming at the same time. Let’s not leave it to the committees because obviously they suck at it. We, as writers, have an advantage because we’re working and experimenting with language all the time. But in the end, the people will speak – or not speak, as the case may be – the new words they like and those they don’t will simply fall by the wayside. Which, I hope, is where “pod slurping”, “googleganger” and “inforvore” have already gone.

Book Review: The Crossing by Michael Connelly

The Crossing is another solid effort from Michael Connelly and even though Harry Bosch has now retired from the LAPD (yeah, we’ve heard that before), it still seems a bit same-same.

It’s six months since the last Bosch novel and Harry has resigned after his suspension without pay at the end of the last book. He’s currently suing the department for forcing him out, hiring his half-brother, Mickey Haller, to pursue the case. In the meantime, Mickey wants him to investigate a murder while his usual investigator recuperates from a motorbike accident.

Harry is reluctant, equating it with crossing over to the dark side. He worries what his former colleagues will think of him but he agrees to do a preliminary review of the evidence before deciding whether or not to come on board. Of course, he comes on board. There’s no story if he doesn’t come on board. That’s evident very early on as Harry tries to settle into retirement and his one and only retirement project, restoring an old Harley Davidson. Tries but fails.

The case is the brutal murder of Alexandra Parks, raped and beaten to death in her own bed. DNA discovered at the scene is determined to belong to Da’Quan Foster but DQ’s alibi, that he was visiting a male prostitute, seems to make him an unlikely candidate as the guilty party.

The story is a little unusual for Bosch, in that where he would normally pick up a case and start from scratch, here he is reviewing the evidence put together by other detectives and looking for the holes, the things they’ve missed. He feels a sense of guilt. Considering how many holes he finds, you would think he would feel a sense of superiority.

Bosch doesn’t have a partner anymore, which makes him seem grumpier than ever. I miss him having someone to bounce off and keep him moderately in check. And not being a police officer means he has to find some creative ways to get evidence and convince witnesses to speak to him. I think he’d be surprised by how much further being a bit nicer to people would get him.

Bosch’s daughter Maddie appears to have undergone a personality change in the six months since the last book. She’s moody, argumentative, judgemental and possibly in the early stages of an eating disorder. Considering she was such as well-adjusted teenager in The Burning Room, her complete 180 appears unfounded. And Mickey Haller, as seen from Bosch’s perspective, is not all that pretty.

If I had the option, I’d give this book 3.5 stars because it’s an improvement on The Burning Room. Harry has rediscovered some of his lost purpose, the mystery is better and there’s a sense of urgency that was completely lacking while he worked in the Open Unsolved Unit. But the villains are simple and a little simple-minded, and we know who they are from the very first chapter. In fact, the villains are the focus of several of the chapters. It was an interesting choice by Connelly, one that I don’t think worked. And I can’t remember him ever giving over so many chapters to the villains’ perspective before.

On a side note, Connelly used to be better at weaving real-life bits and pieces into his stories but in Chapter 4 he takes a very obvious pot shot at the former Californian Governor and actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (without actually naming him), about using his authority to provide executive clemency to a political ally’s son, who was convicted of killing a man. The pot shot is over a page long and I actually stopped reading the book and Googled the anecdote to see if it was true or part of the plot. It was true. I agree with Connelly that it hardly paints Schwarzenegger in a good light but it was so poorly done on Connelly’s part that it loses its power. And instead of being angry with Schwarzenegger, I am angry with Connelly for including such disruptive paragraphs. If he were anyone else, I doubt his editors would have let it through because it completely throws the reader off and actually has nothing to do with the story.

But if you’re a Bosch fan and a Connelly fan, The Crossing won’t disappoint. It won’t amaze you either, but it won’t disappoint. But I’m kind of hanging out for an effort from Connelly that completely blows my mind. It feels like it’s been a while.

3 stars

*First published on Goodreads 2 January 2016

Secrets To Writing A Bestseller Identified After Decade-Long University Study

Stadler University in the Scottish Highlands has today released the results of its ground-breaking decade-long study into the secrets of writing a bestselling novel.

“It’s been a lot of hard work but it’s been worth it,” said Professor Juanita Randling, the lead author of the study and a world-renowned expert on popular fiction. “And we’re pleased to be able to share it with the world.”

The entire report is available for sale from the university as they attempt to recoup the costs of the study, which informed but confidential sources have estimated to be over a billion dollars. But several key components of the formula have been released publicly as part of today’s announcement.

“We hope people take advantage of this research,” Professor Randling said. “The more of them who can tick writing a bestseller off their bucket list, the sooner they can move on to spending the money they will make from it.”

The formula for writing a bestselling novel includes:

1. The main protagonist must be male.

“The emasculation of men in the last few decades has trickled through into fiction – actually, it’s been more like a gusher – but bestsellers have ignored political correctness. After all,” said Associate Professor Joshua Caton, the study’s co-author, “who wants to read about men being saved by women? No one, that’s who.”

2. There must be a female love interest.

“Love still makes the world go round,” according to Francine Shay, the study’s Lead Research Assistant. “And the protagonist needs someone to save. Whether it’s a wife, girlfriend, daughter, sister, mother, grandmother, cousin, whoever, the love interest is crucial. And she has to be beautiful. Ugly people just don’t cut it.”

3. The good guys must be American.

“It’s simply an imperative,” visiting US academic and study contributor Dr Ronald Evans told this reporter. “Not a moral one but a bestselling one, particularly if you’re writing in English. Russian heroes, Chinese heroes, Iranian heroes, it’s just nonsense.”

4. But the bad guys can be American government institutions.

“American government institutions are full of left-leaning liberals,” Dr Evans adds. “We used to be able to call them communists but now they sue the pants off you if you do. Bestselling fiction is the last place you can tell the truth.”

5. The bad guys must be caught in the end.

“It’s reward for effort for anyone willing to wade through 350 pages of a novel,” PhD candidate Evelyn Long explained. “The bad guys get away with all sorts of things in the real world and we read fiction for the poetic justice that’s lacking in our everyday lives. Any novel in which the bad guys don’t get caught is simply missing its final chapters. And it’s definitely missing the ultimate element that will make it a bestseller.”

Professor Randling and Associate Professor Caton, along with a dozen research assistants and study contributors, have tendered their resignations to the university and plan to put the years of research to good use. Despite none of the academics having completed their novels, they have all signed multi-book, multi-million dollar contracts with leading publishers.

Rumours have been swirling that key parts of the formula have been withheld but the authors have denied this. “Bestselling novels tend to be better written and we’re looking forward to improving the quality of all writing. We owe it to readers everywhere. Anyone who purchases the complete report will have everything they need to write a bestselling novel.”

This reporter, for one, looks forward to the guaranteed good reads in years to come.

*****

For those who haven’t figured it out yet, all academics, institutions and secrets referenced in this study are completely fictional and tongue-in-cheek. If there is a secret formula to writing a bestselling novel, nobody has figured it out yet. Happy April Fools’ Day!

There’s No Such Thing As An Aspiring Writer

Every time I see someone describing themselves as an aspiring writer, I want to shout at them, “There’s no such thing! Being a writer is like being pregnant – you either are or you aren’t. So are you writing or not?” Because if you write, you’re a writer. And if you don’t, then you’re not.

Saying you are an aspiring writer has as much meaning as me saying I’m an aspiring rich person. Let’s read between the lines. It means I would like to be rich but I’m not. It also likely means I don’t have a clear plan of how I’m going to become a rich person. I’m also an aspiring piano player, an aspiring helicopter pilot and an aspiring hermit.

Some people seem to have trouble with this concept. They think of writing as something they might do one day, like retiring and travelling the world after they’ve finished working their real job, paying off their mortgage and raising their family. But just like retiring and travelling the world, it requires a lot of preparation. You can’t just decide you want to do it one day and the next day be doing it. At least, if you do, you won’t be doing it well.

Only a miniscule percentage of a miniscule percentage of writers write something perfect and publishable on their first go. The vast majority that comprises the rest of us have to practise and practise and practise. And while we’re practising, we’re writers. Whether or not anyone else reads it is irrelevant. Do you really want the first thing you write to be the one and only book you’ve got in you? Wouldn’t you rather it was the tenth book and have the knowledge and skill that comes with practising to help make it the best possible book it can be?

The great thing about writing is that you don’t require anyone else’s permission to do it. It doesn’t require study or training, although that helps sometimes. You don’t have to be a member of any group or if you write something you aren’t happy with, you don’t have to show it to anyone. You can write a little here and a little there in between working your real job, paying off your mortgage and raising your family. And anyone with a basic knowledge of the language they want to write in can do it.

So if you want to do it, then do it. But if you aren’t doing it, then stop telling us that you want to, that you might one day. People who want to, who might one day are unpredictable and, worse, unreliable. And every day you don’t write is another day of diminishing credibility.

So write. Or don’t. Just don’t call yourself an aspiring writer.

*First published in Project December: A Book about Writing

Book Review: The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

I wanted to hate this book. I wanted it to be Twilight-eqsue, capturing the imagination of the young and crossover mainstream reading public in spite of the fact that it was okay rather than great. I wanted to get to the end of the book and feel superior in some way. I wanted to be able to hate this book. But I don’t. I can’t. Because it is a great book.

This is the story of Hazel and Gus and how they fall in love. Sounds cheesy, right? Sounds like it’s been done in young adult novels a hundred times before, right? Hazel has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Gus is in remission but has had a leg amputated. Okay, a little less cheesy but cancer? So Jodi Picoult, right? Still been done before, right? Except even though the concept feels like it’s been done before, it’s never been done this well before.

The Fault in Our Stars is narrated in the first person by Hazel. I thought it only natural that since it was her story, she would be the one to die at the end of the book. Then I thought since she’s the narrator, she can’t be the one to die at the end of the book. In the end, she doesn’t narrate the end of the book. But don’t jump to conclusions about how the book ends. You have to read it to know. You have to go through the process of reading it, the process of absorbing these characters, to be justifiably rewarded with the ending. If you’re one of those people who read the last page of a book first, then you’ll do this book and yourself an injustice.

There’s a novel within the novel and that had the potential to be fraught with danger but in the end it’s perfect. It’s a novel about a girl with cancer that the main character of this novel about a girl with cancer has read and reread over and over. Hazel introduces Gus to the novel, which ends mid-sentence as the girl with cancer presumably dies or is physically unable to tell her story anymore. It’s infuriating and drives them on a journey to meet the author and ask him what happens next. It’s a perfect metaphor. No one can know what happens next after they die. But we want to. We want to know our family will grieve and move on, not so far that they forget us but enough to be able to continue existing with meaning in their lives. We want to know we will be remembered. We want to know that there was a reason for all this joy and suffering and happiness and pain.

Clearly, it’s not just a love story. It will make you think, as it made me think, about so much more than just love (just love, I say, as if that isn’t huge in itself).

The cover of the version I read was drenched in recommendations from other authors and the publisher had even included an extra page of recommendations, a glossy page that seemed like an afterthought after the book had been printed. Usually, when a book is so highly recommended, I am sceptical. But every one of them calling this book “perfect” and “elegiac” and “remarkable” and “touching” and “heartbreaking” and “poignant” and “important” and “a tour de force” is justified. I know when I read other reviews of this book I’ll find some that didn’t agree (because that seems to be the curse of writing and being read, that no one ever agrees one hundred percent) but this time I’m with the masses. And what a joy, a book that was great and that sold well.

I can only remember crying uncontrollably while reading two books and this is one of them (for parts of it anyway – the other book was The Bridges of Madison County). I didn’t want to cry. I knew it would be about death in some way, shape or form but I thought I was prepared for that. We never really are, though, are we?

So glad I read it. So glad I was wrong. So glad there is a writer of this quality in the world today creating books that tick all three boxes when it comes to producing a novel: writing, characters and plot. Tick, tick, tick. I’d hate to be the book that comes after it. For a while, at least, everything else must surely pale by comparison.

5 stars

*First published on Goodreads 29 December 2015

The Concerning Reading Material of Criminals, Terrorists and Writers

How often do we see it on news broadcasts after the capture of criminals and terrorists? When searching the personal belongings of the perpetrators, police discover pamphlets on how to make bombs, books on forensic procedures and internet searches on where to dispose of bodies. Who would ever have thought that writers, the architects of awful acts in the imaginary realm, would have so much in common with criminals and terrorists, the agents of awful acts in the real one?

It’s not really that surprising. After all, nobody is born bad, not even fictional characters. We learn how to be bad through a combination of factors: parental influence, peer pressure, imitation of heroes (even if they’re anti-heroes), warped ideologies, poverty, greed, a failure to turn the other cheek. So sometimes writers need to do a little research in order to give their stories a sense of reality and their characters realistic knowledge and backgrounds.

When I was writing my debut novel, Enemies Closer, I was neck deep in internet searches of topics I am sure landed me on several watch lists. The US Marine Corps. The Pentagon. Laser weapons technology. China. Aeroplanes. Helicopters. The CIA. The FBI. Heckler & Koch, the weapons manufacturer. Benzodiazepines, also known as date rape drugs. Espionage.

Of course, I didn’t have a network of known criminal associates or a history of getting into trouble and even a cursory investigation into what I was doing would have revealed sample chapters containing all of the above research being shared in an online classroom populated by master’s students writing books.

I wrote several weeks ago about the impression the police would have of me if they searched my home (crazy cat lady). Once they have waded through the cats currently occupying the study/library, here’s a selection of books they would find that might have them rethinking if that’s the appropriate label.

Firearms by Chris McNab

Illustrated Guide to Combat Weapons by Jan Suermondt

Small Arms of the World edited by Peter Darman

The main character in Enemies Closer is supposed to be a weapons expert, a former Marine working as a weapons designer and the owner of an antique gun collection. I, however, have never even held a gun. (I want to say that I’ve never even seen a gun, except on television and in the movies, but it’s possible I might have. I have a vague memory of going into a gun store during my final year of high school and asking questions for a physics project I was doing on the velocity of bullets.) So these are some of the gun books I own. They don’t make me an expert – not even close – but they allow me to sprinkle references throughout my action adventure novels that at least make my main character look like one.

Gray’s Anatomy by Henry Gray

No, that’s not a misspelling of the name of a television show. For those who aren’t aware, this is the definitive book on the anatomy of the human body. It was written a long time ago but it still has plenty to offer. It allowed me to write a scene in which a serial killer cut a victim’s vocal chords to ensure he couldn’t scream while avoiding the major veins, thus enabling a terrifying, lengthy but silent murder.

Profile of a Criminal Mind by Brian Innes

Mindhunter by John Douglas & Mark Olshaker

Journey into Darkness by John Douglas & Mark Olshaker

The Anatomy of Motive by John Douglas & Mark Olshaker

There’s almost always a bad guy in the novels I write and understanding why they are bad is crucial, otherwise he (or she – I believe in equality when it comes to doing evil) could end up being a caricature or a stereotype. John Douglas is the famous (or maybe it’s infamous) FBI profiler who almost every fictional FBI profiler ever written is based on, including Jack Crawford in Thomas Harris’s books and Terry McCaleb from Michael Connelly’s Blood Work. If you can stomach them, these books offer insight into some of the most terrible crimes ever committed. And there are a lot of fictional serial killers based on composites or aspects of real ones, so these texts may also help with developing a genuinely scary and evil villain. It’s on my to do list.

Perfect Crimes by Marvin J Wolf & Katherine Mader

Forensics: Crime Scene Investigation from Murder to Global Terrorism by Dr Zakaria Erinclioglu

Why is one thing and how is another entirely. If it’s worth writing about, then surely it’s worth the possibility of getting away with it.

The Koran

The Bible

The Book of Mormon

I’m always on the lookout for books that might one day come in handy as references for my writing. I haven’t used any of these for that purpose yet but it’s why I bought them in second-hand stores. I hope the police don’t mistake me for a multi-faith terrorist.

The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull

Despite what it might look like, this was one of the textbooks from my undergraduate university course. I can’t remember which subject it was for (something to do with politics; it was nearly twenty years ago – oh my God, I am old!) and like most university textbooks, I’ve never read it in its entirety. And, of course, it remains in my library because – as a previous post explained – I never get rid of books.

KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Gorbachev to Lenin by Christopher Andrew & Oleg Gordievsky

History is a very fertile ground for inspiring fictional stories and the current state of Russian politics and international diplomacy suggests not much has really changed, so a book like this would be able to infuse a novel with a sense of reality. I’ve never written a story with Soviet baddies as I like to mix it up and make the baddies the people you would least expect but it’s there just waiting. However, I suppose the police trying to form an assessment of me from my library could add “possible communist” to the list.

Of course, these books are a relatively small proportion of my library and are dwarfed by poetry, fiction, television and movie tie-ins, books on writing and more general (and innocent) reference materials. And if that doesn’t convince the police that I’m no threat to public safety or national security, this should: nowhere amongst my large collection of books is there a copy of Mein Kempf.

*First published in Project December: A Book about Writing