Someone much more famous than me, and probably a much better writer than me, said (and I'm paraphrasing here, because I can't remember the quote) that you can call yourself a writer when you use a royalty cheque to pay for your electricity bill. Well, in 2014, I achieved that a number of times. So officially, I can call myself a writer.
But in all honesty, is that what writing is about? Are we only judged to be something if we make money out of it? Can we only apply that label on ourselves if we make enough money from writing to pay our bills? Now, don't get me wrong. I like having a bit of cash. And making a tiny amount of money from writing is actually a fantastic feeling - all of those strangers, paying to read something you've written - but that's not why I write. I write because I love doing it. I love sitting in a pub, cranking open my little laptop, and churning out a few hundred - or even a few thousand - words. I love taking out a notepad in a library and scribbling down as many words as possible until my hand aches. Hell, I've even written stuff on a post-it note when I've been bored during training sessions in a workplace. That makes me a writer. Wanting to write. And even on the occasions where I've backed myself into a corner in a story, and I'm suffering from writer's block, the fact that I have "writer's" block, well, doesn't that make me a writer also?
I've even had people who know me say to me, "Well, you're not really a writer, are you? Because you work at such and such a place." They don't comprehend the shitness of what they have just said. What can I say to that? Well, have you read any of my stuff? Can you write a 100,000 word novel? Have hundreds of people paid you to read something you've written? In all honesty, I don't expect every person I know to buy or read one of my books. I know a few musicians (I'm honoured to call some of them friends), but if they released a screamo-based CD, the chances are I wouldn't buy it because I'm not into screamo. I might give it a listen, out of courtesy. But what I wouldn't do is say, "Yeah, but you're not really a musician, because you just play local gigs and you've only sold a few CDs."
And here's the crux of it all. People who create - be they artists, musicians or writers - they generally stick together. They recognize the hard work of their fellow creators and even if they cannot fully appreciate it, because it's not to their own personal taste, they wouldn't seek to diminish what that person has done.
There is too much snobbery in the creative world. People who play the guitar, sing songs, write their own stuff or even perform in a covers' band at the weekend, do we consider them to be musicians? People who paint pictures or come out with some fantastic pencil drawings, do we consider them to be artists? The fact that these people are not "full-time" musicians or singers or artists, does that really make any difference? They are all doing something which other people cannot do. The label applies, irrespective of how much money they make. When you go to see a band churning out a cover version of "Sex on Fire" in your local boozer, you don't turn to your friend and say, "Yeah, that factory worker in the band, he sounds great." You say, "The singer sounds great."
I'm currently involved in a small project called The Literary Commune. They've published a couple of things by me. The magazine, which has a tiny readership, is given away free to those who would choose to read it. The contributors to the magazine, they receive nothing, but they do have the satisfaction of knowing that their stuff is being read by interested people. I would say that if you're interested in writing or if you're interested in reading fresh, original and gritty stuff, drop them a line. They're on Facebook here - https://www.facebook.com/theliterarycommune.
And remember - being a writer is not about how much you write, it's not about how much money you make. It's about the fact that sometimes you sit there and curse because you have no pen or paper and you have to write sentences, paragraphs and plots in your head, and hope that you'll remember them by the time you get home.
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Friday, 14 November 2014
Bad Reviews
Had my first bad review the other day. It was for "die Stunde X", an alternative history novel I wrote when I was 24/25. Incidentally, I've just finished writing the follow-up to it, but that's a whole different story.
Now, this bad review affected me because, as a writer, all I have is my ability to put words down on paper in an exciting and sensible order to create something readable. But this person, well, to cut a long story short, he said that I switched tenses and that somebody like me, with no grasp of grammar, shouldn't be writing books. I pondered on his criticism. No, scratch that, I raged on his criticism for a few days. And then I read his other reviews, and realized that he'd said pretty much the same thing about every other Indie writer he'd read. The crux of his criticism are these. Firstly, he doesn't like "Americanisms". Well, friend, get with the modern age. Notwithstanding the fact that I wrote "die Stunde X" twenty years ago, the majority of British writers are going to be affected by "Americanisms". We're living in the 21st century. It's how things are. The second thing he has a problem with are continuous tenses. In particular, he doesn't like people writing, "He was sat over there," or "He was stood right there." Now, of course, everyone who has studied English even just to secondary school level will know that these are grammatically incorrect. One would not say, "He was ran over there." Rather, you would say, "He was running over there." However, for reasons that can only be explained away by local dialect, by use of the vernacular, people do actually say, "I was stood right there ..." It's the way people speak. Though it most definitely frowned upon by the Oxford English Dictionary, even they recognize that its usage is rife not only in UK newspapers, but also on the BBC. Call it slang, call it a bastardization of the English language, but that's the way things evolve. Incidentally, I'm presuming that this critic of my work would also take umbrage to me using "-ize" rather than "-ise". God knows I've been pulled up so many times for this in the past, but a simple bit of research will demonstrate that not only is "-ize" acceptable British-English, it is also how we used to write things. Indeed, this is one case where the Brits have got lazy whereas the Americans are sticking to the original spelling.
But in any case, back to the original topic. This critic. Now, not only has he stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that I'm a useless writer, mainly because, as a self-elected member of the grammar police, he has decided that I don't follow certain rules, he's also done the same to many other Indie writers. The thing is, these guys have sat down and written books. They're Indie writers and we all give them a certain amount of leeway. Unlike like Grisham and Rowling, they don't have a fantastic editorial team behind them to spot these transgressions of continuous tenses and the spelling mistakes (I actually spotted eight in Stephen King's last novel, but what the hell, people shrug because he's a famous writer). What they have done, however, is sat down and written a book. And to those who have never done that, I would say this. Don't criticize mercilessly until you have attempted to write a book yourself. I've written ten, and I think I've learnt a lot since 1994, when I wrote "die Stunde X". Now, I write generally in first person, where I can definitely say, "I was stood over there," because that's common vernacular, and that's the way my lead character would speak. The thing is, the people this guy writes off, maybe they're just starting out, and what they do not need is some banal, three-sentence review telling people that they're basically shit at writing English, and they should go away and do something else. To this person, I would say this. If you want to read something which is finely polished, but ultimately soulless, then purchase books by writers who are published through mainstream publishers, rather than Indie writers or those published through smaller labels. That way, rather than spending £8 on four books which you will absolutely criticize (but would probably actually enjoy if you ditched the grammar police spectacles), you will spend £8 on one book which is so finely crafted, you won't have to criticize it.
In conclusion, I'd say this. Just read and enjoy. Stop worrying about being a member of the grammar police. And sentences can start with "and". Sat over there is a copy of my latest book. But I just remember, you said that sentences can't start with "sat" or "stood" or "but". But why not? Rules are meant to be broken. And the greatest writers in the world break those rules for literary effect. And unless you've actually written a book, perhaps you should just sit down in your accepted role as "reader", and read, rather than edit and criticize.
And remember - there has never been a monument to a critic.
PS - I apologize for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. And (I shouldn't start a sentence with "and", but for effect (being that this is a forgotten addition to the previous sentence) I have done) typos (was it worth the wait?). Please don't pull me up on them. Once I stopped being a member of the grammar police, I enjoyed myself a lot more and people hated me a lot less.
Now, this bad review affected me because, as a writer, all I have is my ability to put words down on paper in an exciting and sensible order to create something readable. But this person, well, to cut a long story short, he said that I switched tenses and that somebody like me, with no grasp of grammar, shouldn't be writing books. I pondered on his criticism. No, scratch that, I raged on his criticism for a few days. And then I read his other reviews, and realized that he'd said pretty much the same thing about every other Indie writer he'd read. The crux of his criticism are these. Firstly, he doesn't like "Americanisms". Well, friend, get with the modern age. Notwithstanding the fact that I wrote "die Stunde X" twenty years ago, the majority of British writers are going to be affected by "Americanisms". We're living in the 21st century. It's how things are. The second thing he has a problem with are continuous tenses. In particular, he doesn't like people writing, "He was sat over there," or "He was stood right there." Now, of course, everyone who has studied English even just to secondary school level will know that these are grammatically incorrect. One would not say, "He was ran over there." Rather, you would say, "He was running over there." However, for reasons that can only be explained away by local dialect, by use of the vernacular, people do actually say, "I was stood right there ..." It's the way people speak. Though it most definitely frowned upon by the Oxford English Dictionary, even they recognize that its usage is rife not only in UK newspapers, but also on the BBC. Call it slang, call it a bastardization of the English language, but that's the way things evolve. Incidentally, I'm presuming that this critic of my work would also take umbrage to me using "-ize" rather than "-ise". God knows I've been pulled up so many times for this in the past, but a simple bit of research will demonstrate that not only is "-ize" acceptable British-English, it is also how we used to write things. Indeed, this is one case where the Brits have got lazy whereas the Americans are sticking to the original spelling.
But in any case, back to the original topic. This critic. Now, not only has he stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that I'm a useless writer, mainly because, as a self-elected member of the grammar police, he has decided that I don't follow certain rules, he's also done the same to many other Indie writers. The thing is, these guys have sat down and written books. They're Indie writers and we all give them a certain amount of leeway. Unlike like Grisham and Rowling, they don't have a fantastic editorial team behind them to spot these transgressions of continuous tenses and the spelling mistakes (I actually spotted eight in Stephen King's last novel, but what the hell, people shrug because he's a famous writer). What they have done, however, is sat down and written a book. And to those who have never done that, I would say this. Don't criticize mercilessly until you have attempted to write a book yourself. I've written ten, and I think I've learnt a lot since 1994, when I wrote "die Stunde X". Now, I write generally in first person, where I can definitely say, "I was stood over there," because that's common vernacular, and that's the way my lead character would speak. The thing is, the people this guy writes off, maybe they're just starting out, and what they do not need is some banal, three-sentence review telling people that they're basically shit at writing English, and they should go away and do something else. To this person, I would say this. If you want to read something which is finely polished, but ultimately soulless, then purchase books by writers who are published through mainstream publishers, rather than Indie writers or those published through smaller labels. That way, rather than spending £8 on four books which you will absolutely criticize (but would probably actually enjoy if you ditched the grammar police spectacles), you will spend £8 on one book which is so finely crafted, you won't have to criticize it.
In conclusion, I'd say this. Just read and enjoy. Stop worrying about being a member of the grammar police. And sentences can start with "and". Sat over there is a copy of my latest book. But I just remember, you said that sentences can't start with "sat" or "stood" or "but". But why not? Rules are meant to be broken. And the greatest writers in the world break those rules for literary effect. And unless you've actually written a book, perhaps you should just sit down in your accepted role as "reader", and read, rather than edit and criticize.
And remember - there has never been a monument to a critic.
PS - I apologize for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. And (I shouldn't start a sentence with "and", but for effect (being that this is a forgotten addition to the previous sentence) I have done) typos (was it worth the wait?). Please don't pull me up on them. Once I stopped being a member of the grammar police, I enjoyed myself a lot more and people hated me a lot less.
Monday, 27 October 2014
Characters
When I write a character, I generally have this person in my head, what he looks like, how he acts, what his personality is like. They usually become my best friends. Rob Murgatroyd, Benjamin Beerenwinkel, Saul Castle, even Alex Savage. Some say that there is something of me in every one of the lead characters I've written, and perhaps there is. But here's the thing. Though I create these lead characters, I have no idea how other people will perceive them.
Benjamin Beerenwinkel, for example, was one of my favourites. He was a writer with cancer. His coping mechanism? Alcohol and self-destruction. But the feedback I got was that he was this selfish guy, self-obsessed, someone you could really get to like. He did bad things and he blamed everyone else for them. Me, I thought he was a nice guy, but maybe I was biased.
Danny McIllvoy, who was obsessed with one of his work colleagues. Did people think he was pathetic or was he a man madly in love with a beautiful woman? Did he just want to save her from the troubles she was going through or was he a sad case?
I wonder what people thought of Rob Murgatroyd, the investigative journalist who'd lost his family in a horrific car crash. I suppose he was on a mission of self-destruction too. But no one ever told me what they thought of him as a person.
Alex Savage, the ex-SAS soldier, now a hitman. Divorced, two sons. Ruthless and yet flawed. Did people like him? No one ever said.
And now Saul Castle, a former teacher now down on his luck, addicted to alcohol, seeking redemption. Saul doesn't blame anyone for the mistakes he's made in the past. He's very open about what he has done. Maybe he's too open. He's seeking redemption, but what do people think of him? Is he weak? Does he deserve to be where he is? Does he deserve to be judged, or should be give him a chance to make his life better?
See, when people tell me they don't like one of my characters, I'm slightly offended. But I'm not offended because they dislike somebody I've created - that, in itself, is actually wondered, that someone I've invented can generate an emotion from someone who reads about them. I'm offended because I see these guys as my friends. I like them, for all their flaws.
But how about you tell me what you think of these guys? I'd be intrigued to find out.
Benjamin Beerenwinkel, for example, was one of my favourites. He was a writer with cancer. His coping mechanism? Alcohol and self-destruction. But the feedback I got was that he was this selfish guy, self-obsessed, someone you could really get to like. He did bad things and he blamed everyone else for them. Me, I thought he was a nice guy, but maybe I was biased.
Danny McIllvoy, who was obsessed with one of his work colleagues. Did people think he was pathetic or was he a man madly in love with a beautiful woman? Did he just want to save her from the troubles she was going through or was he a sad case?
I wonder what people thought of Rob Murgatroyd, the investigative journalist who'd lost his family in a horrific car crash. I suppose he was on a mission of self-destruction too. But no one ever told me what they thought of him as a person.
Alex Savage, the ex-SAS soldier, now a hitman. Divorced, two sons. Ruthless and yet flawed. Did people like him? No one ever said.
And now Saul Castle, a former teacher now down on his luck, addicted to alcohol, seeking redemption. Saul doesn't blame anyone for the mistakes he's made in the past. He's very open about what he has done. Maybe he's too open. He's seeking redemption, but what do people think of him? Is he weak? Does he deserve to be where he is? Does he deserve to be judged, or should be give him a chance to make his life better?
See, when people tell me they don't like one of my characters, I'm slightly offended. But I'm not offended because they dislike somebody I've created - that, in itself, is actually wondered, that someone I've invented can generate an emotion from someone who reads about them. I'm offended because I see these guys as my friends. I like them, for all their flaws.
But how about you tell me what you think of these guys? I'd be intrigued to find out.
Saturday, 18 October 2014
Maggie's Children is out and I'm sober.
You can now buy Maggie's Children in either Kindle format or as a paperback.
A link to the Kindle version which is available at Amazon.
This book wasn't as tough to write as Besotted, but it was still a drain. Right now, I'm working on nach Schema F, the sequel to die Stunde X. This is an alternative history novel, and is completely different to the transgressive stuff I've been writing for the last few years. I like to think of it as a bit of a yarn, a romp, something you can read, be entertained by, and then toss to one side and forget. It's no secret that die Stunde X is my bestseller, and I suppose it's only natural that I should write a sequel, though it has been 20 years since I wrote DSX. Call it a shrewd marketing move, but I like to think that I'm writing a book that some people have been asking for. From a writer's perspective, it's also a fun book to write. I reckon I'll have the first draft finished by the end of October, and it should definitely be out in time for Christmas.
I'm also going sober for October, for Macmillan Cancer Support. Last year I raised almost £200, but this year it's slow-going. I'm guessing that a lot of people are doing charitable things, and everyone's fed up with it. But if you could see your way to donating something, I'd be grateful.
You can go here to make a donation - https://www.gosober.org.uk/profile/shaunmartin.
A link to the Kindle version which is available at Amazon.
This book wasn't as tough to write as Besotted, but it was still a drain. Right now, I'm working on nach Schema F, the sequel to die Stunde X. This is an alternative history novel, and is completely different to the transgressive stuff I've been writing for the last few years. I like to think of it as a bit of a yarn, a romp, something you can read, be entertained by, and then toss to one side and forget. It's no secret that die Stunde X is my bestseller, and I suppose it's only natural that I should write a sequel, though it has been 20 years since I wrote DSX. Call it a shrewd marketing move, but I like to think that I'm writing a book that some people have been asking for. From a writer's perspective, it's also a fun book to write. I reckon I'll have the first draft finished by the end of October, and it should definitely be out in time for Christmas.
I'm also going sober for October, for Macmillan Cancer Support. Last year I raised almost £200, but this year it's slow-going. I'm guessing that a lot of people are doing charitable things, and everyone's fed up with it. But if you could see your way to donating something, I'd be grateful.
You can go here to make a donation - https://www.gosober.org.uk/profile/shaunmartin.
Monday, 21 July 2014
Maggie's Children
I wrote it with a pen in some Moleskine notebooks - two of them, in fact. 230 pages, 90,000 words. Writing longhand is a very honest way of writing. Plus it's easier than lugging a laptop around. I found that I just threw sentences down onto the paper, and I'll decide at the second draft stage whether they're worth keeping. I really want to know what people will make of this novel. It's a strange one, stranger even than "Besotted".
Here's what's going to be difficult - writing the blurb for the back cover. What can I write without giving too much away? Well, the book is about a man called Saul Castle. We meet him when he's in his forties, is an alcoholic, and is just about to attend the funeral of a friend. It seems as though Saul Castle's life has been dotted with tragedies.
This book didn't affect me the way "Besotted" did. Of course, I used some events of my life to pad this story out - what writer doesn't - but I didn't have to become Saul Castle in order to write it. In that respect, it was moderately easy to complete. But the next huge step is the most difficult one - letting people read it.
It should be ready around September time, so keep watching this space.
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
I Like Reading the Daily Mail, See ...
I like reading the Daily Mail, see
It tells me how things in the world are and how
things in the world should be
There’s people out there who don’t like it
They find it offensive ‘cause they don’t agree
But the things they like, the things they say and
read, perhaps they might be offensive to me
That’s why I like reading the Daily Mail, see?
It tells me that these immigrants are over here stealing
all of our jobs
It tells me the Lithuanians and Bulgarians, the
Albanians too, are always on the rob
And then it goes and tells me that all us British
blokes are just workshy slobs
And at the same time, all of our politicians are
just toffee-nosed snobs
I suppose some people might call it journalistic hypocrisy
But I think it’s just like those journalists are
talking to guys like me
And I still like reading the Daily Mail, see?
It could be because of the Union Jack and my
British nationality
Or maybe it’s ‘cause I love our dear old Royal
Family
I mean, they may be rich and privileged, but they’re
British, just like you and me
They have their Sunday roasts and they’re always
drinking cups of tea
The Daily Mail says it, so that’s the way it must
be
And then sometimes I wonder why I like reading the
Daily Mail, see.
Sunday, 15 June 2014
Why England Loses
I like playing
football, but I like driving Bentleys too
See, I like getting
paid lots of money too
I used to kick a ball
around for me school
But back then, it were
a different kind of rule
Back then, we used to
play for fun
We didn’t used to play
for money
We used to like the
glory
The idea of getting
kissed by the girls from the school
But that don’t happen
now
Now, we have WAGs
We have birds who ain’t
just common, council estate slags
Well, they might be,
but they’re more classy
But then, that’s the
problem, ain’t it?
I’m not thinking about
football
I’m thinking about all
these other bits and pieces
Which probably
explains why England always loses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)