78 Reasons...

78 Reasons Why Your Book May Never Be Published & 14 Reasons Why It Just Might

This book, written by Pat Walsh, does what it says on the tin, and I'm not going to review the book here! I just want to say (to Pat if he's reading) that I really enjoyed reading the book - yes, there's bluntness, but there's sneaky bits of humour too (yes, dear reader, I laughed out loud a couple of times). And, of course, there is much sound advice about getting your novel (or work of non-fiction) published.

So, to Pat: "Thanks. Your 78 Reasons book did not put me off. If anything, it encouraged me to keep on doing everything necessary so that I (eventually) become a published author."

Write a first novel

And when writers don't write, following on from my previous post, they find all sorts of interesting websites to visit or they suddenly decide to reorganise their utility bills or they think that now is the time to remove that seemingly indelible stain.

Indelible is a good word.

Indubitably.

Anyway, I'm not the only one who is interested in inspiring others to write a first novel. Take a look at this motley crew*:

• Writing Your First Novel by Victory Crayne
  
• Your First Novel (a book review)
  
• Writing my first novel - discussion started by Kate Elliot

[* Again, even though I am not writing my novel this instant I am definitely writing in the style of my main character. This blog may have to wait a while, methinks

Timequake?

Have you read Kurt Vonnegut's Timequake? It's less a novel and more a discourse on things that matter to the author, like his family, war and Kilgore Trout (a fictional sci-fi writer). It's about... well, to me, it's about writing.

If ever a book could encourage me to write, it is this one!

So I do not doubt that Vonnegut is an accomplished writer, a true wordsmith if you like. But I know that many readers and critics would not consider his books (especially Timequake) to be novels. (Vonnegut even writes about the lack of depth to his characters, according to some critics, in Timequake.)

So an atypical novel encourages me to write a novel.

This is interesting because, for the last few years, and particularly this last year, I have been trying to learn how to write a novel. What makes a novel? What are the mechanics of a novel? What are the requirements? Etc. I have read excellent books about novel writing that explained much to me - explained the rules.

I then went to a creative writing course at Arvon to learn more about rules and then to learn that there are, in fact, no rules: "there are no rules to writing". But it's only after reading Timequake that I truly understand what this means.

Here's a quote from the book (and the reason why Vonnegut writes):

"Still and all, why bother? Here's my answer: Many people need desperately to receive this message: "I feel and think as much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people don't care about them. You are not alone."

This is not my motivation for writing, but that's not the point. Vonnegut wants to engage directly with the reader, as I do.

So will my book be a Timequake?

Yes, and no.

I am not Kurt Vonnegut and I have not lived his life so I could never have written Timequake. (I sincerely doubt I can write as well as Vonnegut too, but that's not important.) I can write my book (working title: Boring John) knowing that some of the daft things I want to write about, and some of the strange ways I want to engage my reader have been thought of before, by no less an esteemed writer than Kurt Vonnegut.

So there will be no Kilgore Trout, no reliving the last ten years, no thoughts about the Vietnam war. But there may well be sexual magic numbers, my thoughts about conflict (internal and external) and, of course, my very own answer to Kilgore Trout will definitely be making an appearance: one Boring John.

James N Frey (in How To Write A Damned Good Novel) believes in rules and I don't disagree with the rules he espouses. People like to read what they like to read. Damned good novels have a certain structure and contain certain types of characters and events happen in a certain way. Etc. You only have to look at the movie output of Hollywood to see that formulas work. However, I've always preferred more audacious, more experimental, more intelligent (if you like) film-making, found in independent films like, say, Vonnegut's favourite film of all time: My Life As A Dog.

So I welcome the sound advice found in How To Write A Damned Good Novel; I just know that the first book I write will be more in keeping with Mr Vonnegut than with Mr Frey.

A warning, though: this will be my first book! Timequake is Vonnegut's last (purportedly). So writing Boring John will definitely be running before I can walk. Somehow, though, it's easier this way. "Sometimes it's easier to run up the hill hard, than to run up the hill steady" - Boring John.

So will I be able to pull it off?

Youbetcha.

PS This means that I don't need to listen that closely to what Nick Daws says in his improbably titled: Write any book in 28 days or less, though I will do the research afterwards as he suggests.

Books I Didn't Finish

(I was going through my notes just now and I came across a review of a book I didn't enjoy. And it made me think about the other books I've read that I didn't manage to finish. It made me want to write the following, in the voice of the character I'm writing about, called...)

Books I Didn't Finish

(Written in the voice of a character I'm writing about at the moment.)

I'm a man that does what his Mum tells him. If I should eat my greens then I eat my greens. If I should exercise three times a week then I exercise three times a week. If it's bad to drink too much beer, then I don't. So when I start to read a book I finish it. I don't skip the boring chapters; I don't read the first page and then the last page; I don't turn over page after descriptive prose page - I read word after succulent word.

There was a time, though, when I didn't finish my book. (Shhh.)

I started reading Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. Now I'm interested in maths and astronomy so I was bound to enjoy this book, especially as everyone raved about The Name of the Rose (much better than the film, as ever). Well I found it to be filled with turgid text, that my little mind could simply not penetrate. I could only manage 100 pages, which is much worse than Paula Radcliffe did in Athens Olympic marathon for women, that's for sure.

The trouble with quitting, as Paula can no doubt tell you, is that it sets a precedent, though.

And it wasn't long before I had not read another book then another. The books listed below are just the books I couldn't finish in the last few years. I have nothing against the writers of these books, except I couldn't finish what you'd started. These books failed me as a reader; or did I fail them as a reader, I'm really not sure? In no particular order:

• White Teeth - Zadie Smith
  Clever. Inventive. About London. But after half-way through the novel I found that I really didn't care about the characters; I was bored. There must be something less boring instead that I can do, or read, I thought to myself. So I put the book down.
  
• The History of Love - Nicole Krauss
  Even cleverer and more inventive than White Teeth. Still, half-way through, I was getting puzzled by the change in points of view, and I really didn't care about the world that was being painted for me.
  
• Where Did It All Go Right? - Andrew Collins
  A happy autobiography type of book. And what's wrong with that? Nothing, except I found this book to be both smug and dull. (Good job I'm writing this in character, isn't it.) It's a shame, really, because I do believe that happy stories can make interesting stories, but this is not the book to read to prove it. (Interestingly, if you read Andrew's blog, you'll see that his Wimbledon-green lawn looks to have come over all Blue Velvet perhaps. I'm talking about the fact that he's even considering the truth (or otherwise) of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.)

The following books were recommended to me by people who thought it would help my writing. In some cases I read most of the book, but others I couldn't even face opening it in the first place. Blimey!

• London Fields - Martin Amis
  Far too clever, and far too well-written to provide any semblance of inspiration to me.
  
• Books by Nick Hornby and Tony Parsons.
  Not me. Aggravatingly so. I didn't even make 20 pages of Man and Boy.
  
• A Multitude of Sins - Richard Forde
  I don't like short stories, and I didn't like how the author treated the subject matter. Good stuff like fidelity, feelings, betrayal, relationships - it just didn't sit well with me. I read most of the short stories then gave it to a person who likes reading short stories. Is that okay, Richard?

I forget what other clever stuff I was going to write here about books I haven't finished as this is my second version of this piece. Of course the first version was much better than the above, frustratingly so. I lost the first to the foibles of writing a blog at Blogger online. (Yes, I swore for several moments. And I'm still angry about it. As it says at the end of those classic Buffy episodes: "Grrr. Aaargh!". Exactly.

--

Okay. Time to do some work. I will let my character swear at Blogger.com one more time,"F***** B****x!" and get on with doing it, then.

How to Write & Sell Your First Novel

(Written by Oscar Collier with Frances Spatz Leighton)

A review (of sorts) and comments

I've just finished reading How to Write & Sell Your First Novel for the second time. I read it immediately after reading James N Frey's How to Write a Damned Good Novel (again for the second time).

I thoroughly enjoyed reading both books the first time, though I did not read one immediately after the other. The second time around, I have to admit to skimming some of the sections of Oscar Collier's book whilst James N Frey's book continued to educate and inspire me. Perhaps the two books are not quite aimed at the same market, and the format is different for sure.

The main benefit, for me anyway, of reading How to Write & Sell Your First Novel was the 'before they were famous' section on successful authors like Stephen King, John Grisham, John le Carré and others. The first time I read these accounts of how these writers overcame rejection after rejection but still succeeded in getting their first novel published (sometimes only after getting their 'second' novel published first) did truly inspire me.

So I've decided to post very small clips of this book, to share the wisdom. This book has definitely helped me believe that my writing a novel is possible.

WISDOM?

• Novelists are made, not born
  
• Write what you feel strongly about, even if it goes against the accepted norm [according to David Cornwell aka John le Carré]
  
• "What is a novel? A piece of yourself - but just a piece - not the whole picture. A novel is the tip of the iceberg. Never give it all away" [According to published novelist Steven Linakis.]
  
• Never give up. If you feel strongly about your writing, someone will like it and publish it. take a chance. Get it all out. Don't talk about it too much - your idea can wear thin... Your novel must have conflict - man against nature, man against man. Your protagonist must survive conflict.
  
• Learn by writing...

I read about the determination of so many authors, their inconvenient writing schedules and what it took for them to write that novel, I couldn't help but think I can do that, too. And, according to Oscar Collier's book you have a 95% improved chance of getting your novel published by starting (and finishing) the first draft of it! I can do that, too.

"Writing is a question of practicing and getting better. There are so many stories of writers who were rejected over and over again who clearly made themselves writers by being persistent. You never know what can happen."

What also comes across in the book is the importance many writers give to revision. In short, the writing begins when it's time to revise

Final book verdict: read James N Frey's book for a step-by-step 'how to' when it comes to writing a novel, and read Oscar Collier's book for a more rambling insight into writing but a fascinating look at how many successful authors overcame all obstacles to get their first novel published.

Curious Incidents!

A while ago, as instructed by a writing course no doubt, I started writing (and keeping) reviews of books that I read. Books included Googlewhack Adventure by Dave Gorman, Life of Pi by Yann Martel, White Teeth by Zadie Smith etc.

Now understanding (by reviewing) how these books 'work' will help my own writing, in some cases and so I will copy my reviews to this blog from today. But reviewing books that a) are not novels or b) I did not finish will not assist me, I feel.

So there will be no review of Dave's or Zadie's book, alas. (Zadie is no doubt a writer of the highest order but I just couldn't read on, and I got half-way through, too.)

I will include my review of Mark Haddon's book, however. And here it is...

'Review' of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nightime written by Mark Haddon

This is a fabulous book about an autistic boy called Christopher and his view of the world as he tries to discover who killed his neighbour's dog. It's almost a guide into 'how to write a novel' as well as 'how to research', 'how to write from child's point of view' and 'how to understate things'.

For me, it's a great insight into how to deal with a difficult person (and maybe shows all of us that we're a little more difficult to deal with than we'd like to admit to). So, in Christopher's case one follows simple rules: try to see things from their perspective, completely. E.g. if she lies then why does she lie?

I could go on and on about why I love this book but I didn't when I wrote the review and I'm not going to make it up here. Instead, here's the last few paragraphs of the book.

:-)

(That's a smiley face emoticon, and it means I'm happy, Christopher. Okay?)

And then I will get a 1st class honours degree and I will become a scientist...

And I know I can do this because I went to London on my own, and because I solved the mystery of who killed Wellington? and I found my mother and I was brave and that means I can do anything.

Review of The Alchemist

Feel good about The Alchemist

Firstly, I'd like to say that I am not a fan of writing reviews. I'm a fan of reading them, but I never want to have to make a living from having to write them. "Too much like hard work." (Thus can the limits of my life's achievements be understood. Lol.)

No, I'm writing this review as it's an exercise in understanding writing. In fact, I have a sheet of paper with several questions on it that I meant to answer and maybe for the next novel I read (London Fields) I shall answer them.

The questions are:

• What did I like most [about the book]?
• What did I like least?
• What about the author's style & characters?
• How did the author achieve tension?
• To what extent did the author force you to use your own imagination?
• Did the chapter move me, make me laugh, bore me, excite me?
• Would I read it again? [Note: YES, absolutely.]
• What about typos, grammar, etc.?

To answer these questions with respect to Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist would be like trying to explain why the early morning sunset looks magnificent and life-affirming, or why the sound of your favourite piece of music (think of Mozart, The Beatles, Robbie Williams or whoever can be relied upon to 'float your boat') moves you so much. Quite simply, to do so would break the spell.

The Alchemist is a little piece of magic, of making believe that you can have control over your life if you look for, and act on, the signs.

To quote Santiago, the hero of the story, "It's true; life really is generous to those who pursue their destiny". Santiago, probably like all of us at some point in our lives, goes on a journey to seek out the 'treasure' only to find that it was [spoiler warning!] located at the start of his journey all along.

Coelho's language is simple -- it was translated (from Spanish, presumably) by Alan R. Clarke -- and everything that happens in the story has a purpose. For me, it was a classic page-turner and I do not use that term lightly.

I guess the novel appeals to my 'feel good about the world' nature (a little like Amelie, the film, does too).

I will always enjoy stories like this. I do think it's a 'proper novel' too, and not just a collection of words loosely arranged to chime with the current zeitgeist. (I'm thinking about The Celestine Prophecy, here which, whilst I enjoyed reading it, jarred with me on several occasions from a writer's perspective. I thought it was quite badly written, actually, whereas The Alchemist is written well enough to charm so that you almost don't notice the words.)

I know that not everyone is as enthralled with Coelho's world and Coelho's words. Perhaps because they think it's all 'new age tosh'; who knows.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm not, and never will be, a writer of book reviews.

What I took from this novel was the notion of searching, of seeking truth and of finding it in the last place you looked. I know. That last statement will always be true - no one looks for something once they have found it! But still it reminds me that sometimes people look for joy, for happiness, for love etc. everywhere but in the one place they will find it: in themselves.

I can use this notion in my next (first) novel, for sure.

To finish this non-review with, here's a short passage from the book I particularly liked:

'The alchemist said, "No matter what he does, every person on earth plays a central role in the history of the world. And normally he doesn't know it."'

(Just imagine what it would be like if he (or she) did know it.)