My mind is a mess. Constantly, I'm thinking of too many things at once. It gets worse when the manic part of my baby bipolar kicks in. I stay awake for hours, I start working on one book, switch to another, before leaving that to consider a fresh, new short. I take a break to change the playlist on Spotify, and then become embroiled in a debate on Facebook. Then I'll spend an hour lying on my bed thinking of new problems for my characters to face.
It's no secret that I can write fast. I can write 5,000 words in an evening, more so if fuelled by alcohol in my local pub, where no one ever talks to me. My record is 10,000 words in an evening. Of course, that's a first draft and sometimes subsequent drafts change drastically. But I could, if I put my mind to it, write a 100,000 word thriller in 10 days. And yet, I don't spend all day, every day, writing. I wish I could. But there are myriad distractions. If I write on a computer, it may ding to tell me that some wanker has disagreed with my politically incorrect post on Facebook. A friend might email me, and I'll have a chat with them. When I've had a mind to, there is the distraction of Internet dating sites, where I have learnt a new tactic - to view someone's profile without contacting them. That's like a cat shitting on your doorstep. You know he's been there, he's paid attention, but he can't be arsed to do anything other than take a shit. Someone might text me. I might start to sing along to a song and decide to get up and dance. The TV will catch my eye and I'll have to watch another episode of Spartacus - just because. I could be writing one book and think to myself, "I'm not feeling this." And if I'm not feeling it as the writer, then the reader definitely won't be feeling it.
I need to concentrate.
And here's the irony. The majority of my income comes from writing. Sure, it's not enough to live a decent existence (they'd never give me a fucking mortgage), and common sense would tell me that I should spend more time writing - especially if it's my "job". But then, because it's my "job", I like to skive off every now and then. And because I'm the boss, I can actually do that. But when I skive, my salary stays the same. If I work, there is the potential for it to increase. But then, because I'm not motivated by money, I'll skive off a bit more. And that vicious circle just keeps going round and round and round ...
I do need to concentrate.
I need to concentrate on just one book at a time, and get it finished. I'm working on "One Eight", I think about "Dark Satanic Mills". Both are halfway complete, yet "One Eight" will be around 70,000 words, whereas "Dark Satanic Mills" is already 150,000 words. And then, to compound things, I started to write another novel, "Smuggler's Blues" - very personal to me. And that doesn't even include the ideas in my head, the books for which I've yet to put serious pen to paper.
The thing is, most writers will churn out a book a year, and I used to think that was pretty poor. Three months to write, three months to edit, six months to publication. So surely two a year is better? But sitting in the driving seat, it's not so easy. And let's not even mention the apathy of the "public" to my serious books, ones like "Besotted", "Putrid Underbelly" and "Maggie's Children". The stuff I enjoy writing. My "public" likes "die Stunde X" and "nach Schema F", so then I feel compelled to write another book in the series. But writing to order is a difficult thing to do. I do want to write the third in that series, but I need to be in the zone.
Shit. It's not easy being a writer ...
And yet, I've just written these last 700 words in about 5 minutes. Mindless cock-babble.
PS - I've not edited it. I'm sure there are mistakes ...
Sunday, 12 April 2015
Sunday, 1 February 2015
Swearing in boozers
I dunno when it happened. When someone decided that it wasn't acceptable to swear in pubs. But it seems as though that's the way things are now.
I started drinking in pubs when I was 15. Now, I can't remember being hugely foul-mouthed at that age, but the older I got, the more I swore. And in my early twenties, all through to my thirties, right up until about the time I hit forty, I would swear in pubs. All of that cunting, bollocking, cunty, shithousing, wanky, fucking cunt-mouth twattery that you could ever imagine. And then sometime, I dunno, about four years ago, one landlord said, "Can you stop swearing?" Of course, I was pissed, so I slipped on my best shit-eating grin and said something like, "What the fuck?" The reply was, "I'm serious." And there was some allusion to there being other customers in the pub who didn't appreciate swearing.
Now, perhaps this disapproval of swearing in pubs coincided with the downturn in people using pubs, which coincided, probably, with the smoking ban and massively cheap beer available in supermarkets. And perhaps the landlords who disapproved of swearing were desperate to keep hold of their middle-class "drinkers" (in very inverted fucking commas, if you please) because they had more disposable income than us plebs. But let's honest. Let me spell this out in as simple a terms as you can understand. Back then, when the swearing ban began, it was swearers who kept the pubs alive. These guys who drank perhaps 10 pints a night, and whose language became more coarse the more pints you drew, they were the ones paying to keep pubs in business. And the middle-class, poncy twats who turned up once a week to have a Guinness surge and a vodka and tonic for their missus, together with a cheap meal on your menu, well, they were never going to be there every night of the week, were they?
But here's the thing. Like the smoking ban, the swearing ban has diminished the appeal of pubs for many people. People stopped going to pubs, because they could get cheaper booze at home and they could smoke in their own houses. And now more and more people like me are drinking at home, because they can swear in their own house. Me, I can drink cheap booze, I can slip into mockney and say, "Fackinell!" and nobody frowns at me because I'm "working class" or because I've used a word they don't approve of.
My local village pub decided they didn't want to have copies of the free magazine The Literary Commune available to its customers because it featured bad language. And when I was told this, I just thought to myself, "What the fuck? Why am I sitting in here spending, I dunno, twenty quid a night to drink alongside poncy, middle-class wankers who probably don't even fucking read anyway, when I can drink at home?" The local boozer is all very posh and la-de-da now, and I feel like a complete piece of cheap shit whenever I wander in there.
On the plus side for pubs, this tactic seems to have worked, because the local boozer is full of people who eat food and who drink barely fuck-all, whilst at the same time, not swearing. That's a nice earner for the boozer, admittedly. Posh people seem to have taken over pubs, and us riff-raff really aren't welcome. But it won't last. There will be another revolution. Perhaps next they will stop us from drinking alcohol completely in pubs?
But whereas the smoking ban was something enforced upon landlords by the government, the swearing ban was something which landlords themselves introduced. I even saw one pub in a town called Oakham where the owners had seen fit to place a sign to the effect that people who swore would be asked to leave.
I dunno. Pubs, beer, lairyness - it all lends itself to swearing. But the swearing ban? It's the death knell for me.
I started drinking in pubs when I was 15. Now, I can't remember being hugely foul-mouthed at that age, but the older I got, the more I swore. And in my early twenties, all through to my thirties, right up until about the time I hit forty, I would swear in pubs. All of that cunting, bollocking, cunty, shithousing, wanky, fucking cunt-mouth twattery that you could ever imagine. And then sometime, I dunno, about four years ago, one landlord said, "Can you stop swearing?" Of course, I was pissed, so I slipped on my best shit-eating grin and said something like, "What the fuck?" The reply was, "I'm serious." And there was some allusion to there being other customers in the pub who didn't appreciate swearing.
Now, perhaps this disapproval of swearing in pubs coincided with the downturn in people using pubs, which coincided, probably, with the smoking ban and massively cheap beer available in supermarkets. And perhaps the landlords who disapproved of swearing were desperate to keep hold of their middle-class "drinkers" (in very inverted fucking commas, if you please) because they had more disposable income than us plebs. But let's honest. Let me spell this out in as simple a terms as you can understand. Back then, when the swearing ban began, it was swearers who kept the pubs alive. These guys who drank perhaps 10 pints a night, and whose language became more coarse the more pints you drew, they were the ones paying to keep pubs in business. And the middle-class, poncy twats who turned up once a week to have a Guinness surge and a vodka and tonic for their missus, together with a cheap meal on your menu, well, they were never going to be there every night of the week, were they?
But here's the thing. Like the smoking ban, the swearing ban has diminished the appeal of pubs for many people. People stopped going to pubs, because they could get cheaper booze at home and they could smoke in their own houses. And now more and more people like me are drinking at home, because they can swear in their own house. Me, I can drink cheap booze, I can slip into mockney and say, "Fackinell!" and nobody frowns at me because I'm "working class" or because I've used a word they don't approve of.
My local village pub decided they didn't want to have copies of the free magazine The Literary Commune available to its customers because it featured bad language. And when I was told this, I just thought to myself, "What the fuck? Why am I sitting in here spending, I dunno, twenty quid a night to drink alongside poncy, middle-class wankers who probably don't even fucking read anyway, when I can drink at home?" The local boozer is all very posh and la-de-da now, and I feel like a complete piece of cheap shit whenever I wander in there.
On the plus side for pubs, this tactic seems to have worked, because the local boozer is full of people who eat food and who drink barely fuck-all, whilst at the same time, not swearing. That's a nice earner for the boozer, admittedly. Posh people seem to have taken over pubs, and us riff-raff really aren't welcome. But it won't last. There will be another revolution. Perhaps next they will stop us from drinking alcohol completely in pubs?
But whereas the smoking ban was something enforced upon landlords by the government, the swearing ban was something which landlords themselves introduced. I even saw one pub in a town called Oakham where the owners had seen fit to place a sign to the effect that people who swore would be asked to leave.
I dunno. Pubs, beer, lairyness - it all lends itself to swearing. But the swearing ban? It's the death knell for me.
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Being a writer ...
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)