Terror with rhythm.
I don't write poetry. Not because I don't like it, but because I can't do it.
I tried. The results would make any meal return. So I don't.
Besides, how could I--or anyone--top this?
« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
January 30, 2008
January 26, 2008
The Taxman Cometh.
It's tax time here. Well, this particular tax return has been festering in a corner since April, and it's due to be done, sent and paid by the end of this month. Much as I despise the revolting act of parting with money, this is a necessary evil because otherwise they'll increase the amount. Then they'll send some big lads round with baseball bats. The local tax office is manned by ogres, I'm sure.
In an effort to put it off just a little longer, I bought three DVD's of interesting historical characters - Charles Whitman, Albert DeSalvo and Charles Manson. You see, there's another deadline drawing close, and that's the deadline for the next horror article for AlienSkin.
Together with the book on Serial Killers I bought in the sales, I should get a few ideas.
Perhaps I can test them on the taxman.
January 16, 2008
The mark of truly great writing.
At the behest of my good and possibly only friend, the acerbic and probably Aperger's Professor Crowe, I looked in on the madness that constitutes Yahoo UK's message boards. There are some wonderfully deranged people posting there. A good dose of McCarthyism wouldn't go amiss on some of the forums, while Hitler might be a little embarrassed at a few of the right-wing views. I'll ask next time I unfreeze him. As per the Professor's advice, I made no attempt to join in. There are no moderates on those forums. Death and taxes rule.
One item I noted was the comment on Charles Dickens' 'Oliver'. The latest adaptation for British television cast Nancy as a black woman. There was much furore on the forum. Mr. Dickens must surely be spinning in his grave? I thought Mr. Dickens would have been delighted.
Dickens made no reference to skin colour in that book. That, I think, was part of its universal brilliance. Apart from Fagin, who was Jewish, the rest of the cast could have been Chinese or African or Indian or anything else. It was set in London but it could have been Beijing or Karachi or Cape Town or Bangalore. Fagin didn't even need to be Jewish to make the story work. No ethnic requirement at all, in any component of the tale.
It was a story of an orphan who fell among a pickpocket gang and who was eventually rescued into 'polite society'. The orphan was a sympathetic character, but so were all the 'bad guys'. Fagin was an old man looking for a retirement nest-egg. He had no intention of hurting anyone. Dodger was a child who knew no other way to stay alive. Even Bill Sykes, the killer, wasn't all bad. Almost, but not quite.
At its essence, it's a story of the criminal element of the city. Any city. Anywhere. Not the gangs, the Mafia, the Tongs, just the ordinary tough-time kids who are doing their best to survive. New York. London. Paris, Munich. Everybody's talking about popular musicals like Oliver. (if you're hearing 'Pop Music' and wondering who sang it, wonder on. I know, but I won't tell. Ha!).
That's why the story lives on. It fits everywhere. It's not tied to a specific time or place. It's not the story of a specific Oliver in a specific London, even though it specifies that this is Oliver and this is London. Oliver could be M'beki, or Li Pau, or bhuPinder. It doesn't matter. The story works anywhere. It works in the 1800's, it works now, it works in a future setting. Everywhere and everywhen.
When your story is critiqued by a critique group, you'll often hear that your descriptions are lacking. What does your hero look like? What does he/she wear? Don't tell them.
Every reader wants to be the hero of the story. That's the point of reading. It's escapism. In that moment, you are the Green Arrow, or Batman, or Harry Potter. Perhaps you're Frodo, or Gandalf, or the Barrow-Wight or even Tom Bombadil. You are the one doing the Great Things. You're in their heads.
If the hero is specified as a Patagonian Hindu of Tibetan descent, how many can identify? You can't work with that as a reader. It can't possibly be you (few exceptions noted). 0n a more general note, if your hero is specifically black and middle class, your white/indian/Chinese readership is excluded. The story is most definitely not about them. They can't identify.
Ah, but what about Lord of the Rings? Isn't Frodo white? Aren't the elves white? Aren't the orcs black?
Who says? Tolkein? I think not. Frodo could have been an Eskimo for all the books say. Sauron could have been (and most likely was) a freelance mortgage consultant. Who else could be so evil? Frodo and Sam were small, and weak, and helpless. You all feel like that once in a while. Yes, you do. That's why you find someone in these stories to identify with. When you write, keep in mind that other people are just as neurotic as you.
Keep it vague. Engage your reader, but engage them all. Not just a select few.
Read 'A Christmas Carol'. What colour is Scrooge's skin in that book? Would the same story work just as well in Zimbabwe or Tokyo or Baghdad, even if you replaced Christmas with another religious festival?
Ask the same question of your own stories. Do they translate in time and space? Can everyone find something to identify with in there? Will they still find it in ten years' time?
If the answer is 'Yes', then prepare to be a success.
If it's 'No', keep trying.
January 11, 2008
Almost-new-year resolutions.
I did make New Year Resolutions, but as my record of keeping such resolutions can best be described as 'abysmal', I hold out little hope.
it occurred to me that if I make them public I might be more inclined to actually do something about them. On the other hand, six months from now I could just delete this entry so it's not as fixed as it might be.
So here they are.
1. Find an agent, or failing that, find a publisher for Samuel's Girl. Revise it as much as necessary to achieve this.
2. Lose some weight.
3. Spend less (my personal favourite).
Now, you would think that losing weight and spending less should work together, surely? Losing weight means eating less food, therefore buying less food. The principle to weight loss is actually extremely simple.
1. Eat less food.
2. Repeat until thin.
3. If you are offered a job as a catwalk model, you've gone too far.
Therefore eating less should save money, yes? Yet it seems the world is full of diets that involve eating less but spending more! It makes no sense at all. Rather like those energy-efficient systems that cost more than they save.
I'm not spending money on nutrition-free 'bulking up' powders that work, as far as I can tell, in the same way as cement. I'm just going to eat less. Logic tells me that will work. I'll soon find out.
Unfortunately logic doesn't help me with resolution one. That's pretty much down to a combination of chance and bloody-minded persistence. The first isn't under my control but the second one is. Bloody-minded persistence it is then. I can do that.
And it might take my mind off food.
