 |
| Vive la difference! |
I'm at a really interesting point in the novel I'm writing. And I know that because it's making me uncomfortable. It's not violence or sex or swearing; no, it's more subtle than that. It's about religion and culture. More specifically, religion and culture that aren't mine.
I've recently had some brilliant email conversations with Lynn Michell, founder of Linen Press, and it's been fascinating to see where our thinking aligns and where it diverges, when it comes to books. We've chatted about the tropes in genre fiction and how, for example, some of the archetypal characters in noir don't play so well out of context, or in a more modern one. It all got me thinking about the boundaries writers place upon themselves and how that can either be a blessing or a curse.
Sometimes when you create a character with a walk on role there is something about them that makes you want to spend more time with them. In Line of Sight that spotlight fell on Thurston Leon, a West Indian private detective based in Dalston. Then (same book) there's Stuart Fraser, the Scottish bloke working for Special Branch over in Belfast. And let's not forget the two cops from Shadow State, Karen Edwards and Jun Wen - a black Brummie and a British Born Chinese detective. You see where I'm going with this now?
The BBC website ran a piece recently about how prolific author and TV writer, Anthony Horowittz, was cautioned to not create a black lead character because he is white. I don't anticipate having a profile that high any time soon (!) so it's a moot point for me, but one that I have considered anyway. Sometimes ethnicity, religion and culture are entirely secondary to a character because they either aren't relevant to the story (and let's face it, I'm talking about my stories here), and sometimes there isn't space for that secondary character to get more than her five minutes on the page. And sometimes, for a whole heap of reasons, I don't feel I have the skill to do it well enough.
But when a fear of being labelled patronising or concerns of allegations of tokenism prevent literature (or any aspect of the arts) being diverse and, well...imaginative...I think we have a problem.
My fifth book in the Thomas Bladen Spy Chaser series stumbles into that maze because it takes place during the 2005 London Bombings. There are a few changes to the team and an assignment that forces people to confront their values and prejudices.
As writers we're so used to Mark Twain's 'write what you know' advice. (Or Hemingway's, if you prefer.) And you've probably heard my own updated version, which is 'know what you're writing about'. When it comes to diversity and inclusivity, I think it's more important to just get out of the village of our own experience. We need to be able to write about people we don't know, so that some of our readers can meet new people too. And not merely perfect, politically correct and sanitised stereotypes, but real, flawed and surprising people.
Anyone who has read the series so far will know that I like to bring characters back from other books - Jack Langton, Sheryl, Sir Peter, and even Bob Peterson (I have a soft spot for Uncle Bob!). This time, MI5 operative Rupee Tagore also returns to Thomas and Karl's world. She was always there, on the floor below.
Writers need boundaries to see how far we've come and then how far we're willing or able to go. Beyond that, we're into the wastelands of taste and the quicksand of appropriateness.
It's a sad fact of our interconnected world that whatever you write, pretty much, someone will take issue or offence with. That's lesson one from social media! I believe, as writers, we have to be true to the muse and to how faithfully we can express our imagination on the page. It's a process, a continual momentum against that formless boundary made up of our own preconceptions and society's mores. When we lose that momentum we become static, trapped in the confines of our own experience, culture and identity. It's not that we have to continually push and risk offending or challenging; it's that we need to feel free to explore the other when the muse takes us.
Recently, The Guardian carried a piece about author Joanna Trollope's criticism of fellow author JK Rowling. Specifically, JT thinks JKR spends far too much time being far too vocal on social media.
You can read about it here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/05/jk-rowling-driven-by-ego-like-kim-kardashian-joanna-trollope
The part that really piqued my interest was JT's suggestion that aspiring authors will look at JKR's interactions online, with her legions of fans, and assume that's what authors need to do these days.
Firstly, of course, getting even half a legion of fans online that aren't bots, retweeter services or purveyors of webcams is quite an achievement. Perhaps a few cohorts is more realistic.
Secondly, social media and online interaction is part of the game now, especially for anyone who is self-published, independently published, or who just wants to engage with their audience outside of their books.
Thirdly, and this is the thing that struck me most, there is no single (or proper) way for writers to behave. Surely that's part of what being a writer is all about? You make it up! Why would it be any different off the page than on it?
There will never be another JK Rowling. Aspire as we may, that ship has sailed. All writers need to balance time spent online with actual writing, which can be problematic because social media activity can feel a bit like writing in that it's creative and engaging. It's also often more fun - a never-ending source of inspiration, validation and connection. It won't get your books written though and may actually cloud your judgment by overloading you with shiny examples of how other people do it. But that too is part of the game. You have to figure out who you are as a writer and how you plan to go about your writing business.
I've seen many people reach overload and declare on line that they're taking a break, as if they have a relationship with social media or the people they're connected with online. Maybe there's some truth in that. I have also spoken with writers who allocate specific time to Retweet, Share, Like and all the other satisfying button clicks. That can work too.
Personally, I think social media can be useful, especially when you are reaching out to discover your audience, and also to interact with other authors. The same goes for writing blogposts (I couldn't not mention them) or your own tweets and posts. Social media plugs us into what's going on, even if that happens to be a bunch of cat videos from time to time.
But please don't mistake it for creative writing.
What is your relationship with social media?
Derek
 |
| Now you see me. |
When it comes to books, the word 'ownership' can mean different things at different times.
Who owns an idea?
Nobody. Try copyrighting an idea and be prepared for laughter and disdain.
Who owns a completed manuscript?
Unless you've been paid to ghostwrite a novel, ownership rests with the author. The laws on copyright different between the UK and US, so as this is a mixed audience I will simply say that in the UK copyright exists (but would still require proof if there was a legal challenge) from the act of writing it. The Society of Authors has some brilliant information here:
http://www.societyofauthors.org/Where-We-Stand/Copyright
Who owns your book once it's contracted?
You own the manuscript and you enter into a contract with an agent or a publisher. They own their edited version of your original manuscript. No matter how many drafts you've gone through, an objective editor will find more gold and cut away more. Their contract permits them to do certain things with your manuscript and specifies which of those actions requires your prior approval.
Who owns your book once it's published?
You and the agent / publisher retain the same proprietary interest in the book, but the reader owns their copy. Now, here's the thing, they may also have an emotional investment in your characters and their adventures, which - I would argue - is every bit as important as the nuts-and-bolts ownership principle. If you disappoint them during that book or in any subsequent book, they will vent their frustration online or by word of mouth. Once you become aware of this factor it can be a challenge to balance what you want to write, what your characters want you to write, and what your audience expects.
I have spoken on this blog before about the principle of 'the same but different'. However, different can mean different things to different people.
The BBC website recently reported that JK Rowling tweeted her apologies for killing off Professor Snape in the Harry Potter series. Some would argue that the plot demanded it and that there's a certain logic in his demise. Others were so attached to Snape (and, of course, Alan Rickman who portrayed him) that it felt like an act of literary cruelty.
I ponder all of this as I write my fifth book in the Thomas Bladen Spy Chaser series, and I'm mindful of the feedback I've received, including:
- Isn't it about time that Thomas and Miranda settled down?
- Is there an ultimate revelation at the conclusion of the series?
- Is Book 5 the end of the series?
- Why isn't Thomas more macho?
- I hope you don't kill someone off just for the sake of it.
Without giving away any spoilers, my statement to the imaginary panel is:
Someone dies in each book. I won't name the dead but I make it a body count of at least eight so far. Thomas has shot five people, been wounded by one, and restrained himself from shooting someone on at least one occasion (not counting a familial near-miss!). How much more macho do you want him? Thomas and Miranda's relationship has its own carousel of baggage, but it has also evolved through the series. Book 5 continues that journey. Is it the end for Thomas and Miranda and Karl? That depends on the readers and what they want. Of course, a TV deal would certainly help bring Thomas Bladen to a wider audience! And yes, there is a revelation of sorts in Book 5. It's subtle, but it is there.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have gun battle to conduct. Or do I?
Derek
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Derek-Thompson/e/B0034ORY08
https://www.amazon.com/Derek-Thompson/e/B0034ORY08
