Category: Writing Page 18 of 24

In Which I Wonder If I Can Take It As Well As Dish It Out

I read about a new(ish) London-based Literary Agency recently, and so last week I sent off some sample chapters of my completed novel ‘Human Noises’ and other bits of ‘please think about representing me’ material to them. And so the waiting begins.

I’ve had… well, let’s say ‘mixed experiences’ with contacting Literary Agents before – to the extent that m’colleague and I used to have a running competition to see who could get the most disappointing response; he won, though whether you could consider that a victory in the strict sense is certainly open to debate.

When the novel’s being mulled over, I always tend to adhere to the idea that no news, as per the cliché, will be good news – within reason. For the first couple of months, I can delude myself that people are meeting in boardrooms and banging their fists on tables as they shout about the bidding war for TV and Film Rights, but after a while I have to accept that the chances are it’s a no – as the ex-Literary Agent Betsy Lerner put it, “No one reads a manuscript, loves it, and doesn’t call the author”. Very true.

Still, while I’m waiting to hear, I shall plug on with the current writing, can’t have all my chocolate eggs in one basket and all that.

In related news: over the course of the weekend, I had the pleasure of reading a short screenplay script by Dom, which was both fun to read and an interesting exercise, as one of the first – and very worst – things which people do when commenting on something someone else’s work is to automatically start thinking of how they would have written it. Which isn’t even close to useful – what I want from people who read my work is a genuine appraisal of which bits work, which bits don’t, what needs to be clarified or dropped, and things like that; not a wholesale rewrite (unless the grammar and structure is worse than I could possibly fear) to make it read like someone else’s work.

Whilst I’m not going to delude myself that I’m likely to challenge the likes of people like Lucy and Lianne, who will both read scripts for you and give you an analysis (tell them I sent ya), I have to say that I enjoyed reading and reviewing Dom’s script, as it meant trying to make sure I can use proper words and terms (though, I hope, not jargon) to explain my thoughts about something which can often seem quite nebulous and tricky to describe. Here’s hoping Dom finds my remarks (which I’ve e-mailed over, Dom) useful.

Of course, I may well be less willing to ‘take it’ if the agency gets back to me with a list of brutal but true reasons why ‘Human Noises’ is a pile of pants, but as I say, at the moment, I’m dreaming of the early-morning meetings where high-powered people argue over who gets me as a client.

Yes, yes, I know – but let me dream for a bit, eh ?

Why Yes, I Was In Soho Yesterday Afternoon. What Of It?

Well, as planned, I went to the Monastic Productions Q&A here in London yesterday, as organised by the BBC.

It was, as I’d hoped, an interesting bash, with writers Matthew Graham and Ashley Pharaoh talking about the development process for Life on Mars and Ashes To Ashes, and taking questions. Most of the questions were interesting and, I’d imagine, informative to the broad mass of the audience and not just me (or the person asking the question).

Not many notes to share from the event – I was more busy listening than noting – but the following were a few things I scribbled down:

Ashley :
– It’s vital for the conflict in any tale to be built into the premise.

Matthew:
– Story should be the delivery mechanism for the characters.
– You shouldn’t be afraid to pitch ideas, and put your neck on the chopping board, and then put forward more ideas.
– You have to write without thinking of things like budget and music clearance.

And lest you think from the above that I was paying more attention to Matthew than Ashley, let me raise this point; talking about spending time with other writers on the series discussing plotlines and scenes, Ashley said that he loved those moments more than anything else, and that the thrill of working in that way with other writers was definitely one of the best parts of the job. Now, I’ve heard this sort of thing from a variety of sources now, and it does seem as if there’s quite a bit of hope that the idea of the US-style Writers’ Room is one which is gaining some popularity here in the UK – perhaps more as a notion or aim than a reality, but this may change in time.

However, the people I’ve heard it from tend to be writers, and so a part of me wonders if it might be less a case of an industry-led notion, and maybe more an appealing idea given that writing is all too often a solitary process? I’m not knocking the idea at all, but I wonder how likely it would be to take off in the UK, especially given that drama series such as those named above usually have shorter series than in the US (eight episodes as opposed to 23, for example – same for comedies much of the time). Any thoughts? Let me know.

And speaking of the solitariness of the writerly life, I didn’t manage to spot as many writing bloggers as I’d hoped – though I did get to say a quick hello to Lianne, and think I saw Mr Perry in the front row, I couldn’t see Monsieur Arnopp or Madame Lucy at all – were you folks there, or was it all a trick whereby you pretend you’ll be in one place and then hide somewhere else and laugh at my expense?

If the latter, you really needn’t have bothered; I can get that sort of treatment at home.

Of Course, Great Minds Think Alike (Or, If You Want To Be Fancy About It, Let’s Call It Morphic Resonance)

As I’ve mentioned a number of times before in this ‘ere blog, I’m working on a novel called ‘Coming Back To Haunt You’ – and indeed have been for quite a while, with occasional fits and starts of productivity and dedication to it, when the mood and my free time allow.

But I’ve stopped writing it now.

I wish I could say that this was because I’ve finished it, or because I’ve done all the rewrites suggested by an agent and publisher and now we’re just waiting for the proofs, but unfortunately it’s for a more mundane reason; a friend of mine lent me a DVD several months ago, and when I finally sat down to watch the film in question (no, I’m not going to name it), I discovered that the main plot thread, and a number of the revelations in the denouement, are almost exactly the same as in ‘CB2HU’ (as I like to call it, even if no-one else does).

So, as I reached the end of the film, my thoughts went pretty much like this:
“Hmm, I liked that. Kind of unsettling in places, but it was all logical, and … oh bugger, it’s very similar to CB2HU, isn’t it? Bugger, bugger, BUGGER. What should I… actually, I think they did some of it much better than I’d thought of. Oh bum. I can’t really try to push CB2HU out into the world now, it’ll look like I’m copying them, won’t it? Oh poo. Big, smelly poo.”

Obviously, that’s a vast simplification of my exact thoughts, which were couched in much more intellectual writerly terms, with references to the notion of the seven basic plots, the works of Joseph Campbell, Fort’s ideas about ‘steam-engine time’ and all that, but the upshot of it all is that I feel I have to stop writing CB2HU, at least for now.

I’m faintly disappointed that I’ve expended a fair amount of time and effort only for it to be thwarted, but I’ll assume it’s a delay and not a denial, and that if I leave it to stew in the back of my mind, I’ll be able to find a different way to tell the tale; if I’m honest, I feel that the film slightly fudged the motivations in a couple of places, so if I can find a tidier and slightly less hmm way to deal with that, I’d be pleased.

Anyway, I’m not entirely thrown off by this; the film’s a much-praised one, so it may well mean the story’s one which people would have been interested in (a good thing), and I know that I’ve learned a fair bit about novel writing from the act of, er, writing a novel (though it’s not the first one, future biographers please note). And it does mean that I should get on with the next book I have in mind, ‘The Body Orchard’, with a renewed sense of focus and purpose, yes?

Yes. Yes, indeed it does.

Monastic Productions Q&A In London

You might already have heard about this, but if not…

The BBC Writersroom has organised a Q&A session with Ashley Pharaoh and Matthew Graham of Monastic Productions – also known as the chaps involved in creating and writing Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes.

It takes place at the Soho Theatre in London on Monday 14 April at 5pm, and tickets are free. Full details, including how to get on the ticket list, are here.

I’m on the list, and am planning to go along – anyone else in blogland attending this? Do let me know, it’d be good to say hello.

And Don’t Even Get Me Started On The Standard Of Parenting In Coronation Street

Now, I’m not any kind of expert on flirting (indeed, for some time I thought that, because of sharing the first three letters of the word, it was pretty much the same as FLIcking someone on the shoulder, albeit whilst adopting a come-hither look), but I do often find soap opera flirting almost painful to watch.

Much of the time, the dialogue’s to blame – just a bit too knowing and arch, and it sounds strangely like a blend of Mamet, Sorkin and Harlequin Romance novels, if you know what I mean; the characters have ready answers a tad too swiftly, as if they’re doing some kind of pre-rehearsed verbal dance. Granted, characters in fiction invariably talk quite differently from people you’ll actually meet (I think it was screenwriter/director John August who said that characters in films speak as we would in reality if we had five extra seconds to frame our words), often because they’re sneaking bits of exposition into the conversation or whatever, but sometimes it’s just a stage too far removed for me.

I’ve been mulling this over because the ‘flirty banter’ in EastEnders has been seeming clumsy to me for a while now, to the extent that the on-screen conversations (and the creaking of the rather visible plot levers) tend to get drowned out in Chez Nous by me yelling ‘Oh my GOD! That’s not how people talk! Ugh!’ at the screen whenever there’s a would-be wooing scene going on.

There are two main offending types of EastEnders ‘flirty banter’, as far as I’m concerned:

1 – HARD-BOILED: As exemplified by Ronnie and Roxy, the purported sex-kittens of the Queen Vic. Obviously, nothing says feisty and smouldering more than names which echo well-known members of the East End underworld, but it’s bolstered by the sisters acting less like femmes fatales and more like people who’ve seen too many Guy Ritchie films. The standard set-up tends to be that one of them (and you’ll guess from the repeated use of that phrase that, offhand, I don’t know which is which – the perils of having names that are so similar*) meets a chap who is, of course, a bit of a wide-boy and a geezer, not to be trusted, and so on. Thus, they are destined by fate and plot requirements to pair off, and the banter is usually something a bit like:

He: So what are you doing tonight, then?
She: What’s it to you?
He: Just wondering, that’s all.
She: Well, stop wondering, it’s none of your business.
He: Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. How does your husband feel about you being in the bar all the time, with all the male punters?
She: My husband’s dead.
He: Sorry to hear that. Boyfriend?
She: Are you offering?
He: Maybe I should be.
She: Maybe you shouldn’t.
He: Maybe you want me to.
She: Maybe I do.
He: Maybe I’ll do something about it.
She: Maybe I won’t be sitting and waiting.
He: Maybe you won’t have to.

… and so on. It’s the kind of dialogue which was prevalent in Moonlighting, but that TV show was a comedy, whereas EastEnders is meant to be based in reality, despite occasionally veering into melodrama and the realms of the East End underworld. That rapid-fire kind of dialogue reminds me of the old ‘Who’s On First?’ routine by Abbott and Costello or Murdock talking to Oveur in Airplane! – again, comedy items.

I referred to Aaron Sorkin above, and yes, there’s certainly an argument to be made that the speedy patter of characters in, say, The West Wing is unrealistic, but I think the ‘walk-n-talk’ sequences in that show are designed more to show the intelligence of the characters, who are able to assimilate information and respond in an unnaturally articulate fashion (plus, when you have a burgeoning romance between character in that show, it’s at least a continuation of those speech patterns, as opposed to the residents of Albert Square suddenly sounding as if they’re residents of Sin City).

Of the two styles of EastEnders flirty banter, this one is more prevalent – especially as EastEnders is full of characters who think they’re well’ard (despite that being the dog’s name), but a new strand has started to make itself known :

2 – ADULT-FEATURE-STYLE: Oh yes. Genuinely not that far from ‘I’m come to fix the shower’ or ‘I’m the pizza delivery boy’ school of flirting, this type of dialogue (so far) mainly seems to be allocated to the recently-returned character Clare, played by Gemma Bissix (who also played a character called Clare in Hollyoaks; I hope that isn’t some kind of condition of her agent passing scripts to her). Now, given that EastEnders is a mid-evening show, it’s unlikely to turn into an all-out nudey-romp-fest, and so the dialogue is less direct than in an adult feature, but it’s still not that far off. It often seems to run along the following lines:

She: Oh hello, man under fifty years of age.
He: Hello.
She: Is that the launderette over there?
He: Yes. Dot runs it, she’ll look after you.
She: Oh good, I need to do some washing.
He: It’s open seven days a week, I think.
She: Mmm, I need to wash my underwear, it’s all lacy and delicate.
He: Er, yes, Dot can probably help you.
She: Yes, my lacy g-strings and stockings need to be washed, or I’ll have no underwear to put on.
He: Well, as I say, it’s just over there, on the left. Push hard on the door, it sticks sometimes.
She: And my bras are so delicate and see-through I have to make sure I wash them properly. Don’t want them tearing apart.
He: In this weather, I can understand your concern. You don’t want to catch cold.
She: Oh, I’m so very hot right now. Mmm…
He: If you go to the caff, Ian’s probably got some canned drinks in the fridge.

… okay, so I’m exaggerating a bit there, but not really that much (from half-listening, Clare had at least two conversations about her underwear with male characters in her first week of returning to the soap, with the men looking as bewildered and scared as if Catherine Tremell had suddenly appeared and asked where the ice was), so please don’t go thinking I’m constructing a straw man argument.

I guess the underlying problem is that the real-world ways people banter and flirt aren’t actually very telegenic; people meet in pubs and bars or at work or in nightclubs, and the way they sound each other out and find they have similar outlooks or interests or whatever aren’t as dramatic as the TV camera, and the narrative drive, demands. Whilst it might be realistic to show people meeting at a club where the music drowns out all their dialogue to the extent that they’re more conducting dual monologues than having a proper conversation, it’s not necessarily going to make for good TV.

Which is probably why instead we see a lot of scenes like the above, which is a shame, as I think that actually properly showing some characters getting to know each other, and realise they get on, would make for a greater degree of audience empathy with them – something which EastEnders is wholly lacking to my mind at the moment, as there are very few characters who aren’t in some way stupid or venal or worthy of come kind of contempt; okay, maybe there’s Dot or Bradley, but her bible-bashing and sanctimony makes her hard to care for, and his refusal to move out of the Square after his dad slept with his wife looks less like the behaviour of a stable character and more a case of plot necessity.

And I genuinely believe that with likeable characters comes audience ‘support’ for them, so that they’ll have an emotional connection with them and want good things to happen to them. I appreciate that may sound simplistic, but I think it’s absolutely vital for an audience in some way to feel a connection with the protagonists. Whether it’s wanting Peggy to be made a Yellowcoat or Tony Soprano not to be gunned down by an old enemy, I believe that the audience has to – on some level – feel engaged and connected with the characters. Without that connection you’re trying to get an audience to spend their time watching a tale of things that never happened to imaginary people who the audience doesn’t care about, and thus has no emotional attachment to, so if they’re laughing or crying or flirting, it’s irrelevant, as the audience doesn’t give too hoots about the outcome, and may well be long gone before the resolution hoves into view.

I’ve perhaps strayed a little off the point here, but before I end this post, I want to make it clear that I think it’s entirely possible to have on-screen flirtation which makes you feel that the characters are both getting along and growing closer, whilst still speaking words that could come out of the mouths of actual people – there are many examples of it around, but perhaps the best example that springs to mind is the relationship between Jack Foley and Karen Sisco in the film ‘Out Of Sight’. Great performances by both the actors, and a terrific script too (I’m sure you can think of other films with good romantic banter or flirty stuff – feel free to post them as comments), showing that it most definitely can be done. And given that all you need for on-screen flirtation are two actors and a script, there’s no reason why TV soaps shouldn’t be able to create the same sort of sparks between characters as, say, Bogie and Bacall did. Budget should not be an issue.

Unless I’m missing something? If so, post a comment and let me know.
Maybe I’ll listen. Maybe I won’t. Maybe I’ll agree. Maybe I won’t
You like that repetitious banter, eh? Well, wait until I start talking about my underwear, you’ll be twice as giddy. Apparently.

*And, for my money, also the reason the band Tony! Toni! Toné! never quite made the big time.

LINK: More Waggish Than WGA-ish

(Spotted at Neil Gaiman’s ever-readable blog – see link in right-hand column.)

‘Names’ Named, Though Not Entirely Shamed

In this post earlier this week, I made what Lucy immediately labelled a shameless attempt to bribe the judges of a competition – the aim of the competition being to script, storyboard or even shoot an advert for the new Patricia Cornwell paperback.

Well, it looks as if I wasn’t shameless enough, or perhaps I should have made a better offer, as the shortlist of six finalists has been announced, and I’m not on it.

However, if you scroll down a little further on the page in question, you may well spot a familiar name. Go on, have a look, I’ll wait right here… back now?

I’m rather pleased about it, to be honest – especially as I’ve never written an advert before in my life. Like getting a rejection letter back but with some promising or supportive remark in it, it’s stuff like this that helps keep me motivated, silly as that may sound.

If you want to see my entry, called ‘Names’, it’s here.

World Book Day 2008

As you may know, today (Thursday 6th March) is World Book Day. Granted, I’m not the main target for this promotion, but I still think it’s a good thing and worthy of drawing to your attention, especially if you have children.

The main element of the scheme is that children (usually via their schools) are given a £1 Book Token – not much use, you might think, but there are nine books which have been published for the occasion, all at the bargain price of – you guessed it – a quid. So kids with the £1 tokens can get a book for free.

Why do I think this is a good idea? Well, not simply because I’d like to be a published writer of books and because I want to feel there are actually going to be people who might be interested in reading them, but because, on a more fundamental level, I think that people being able to read, and wanting to do so for pleasure, is a good thing.

I know there are various celebrities who make odd semi-boasts about never having read a book in their lives, and that the average person reads something like four novels a year (I think it’s higher for women), but one of the reasons I think being able to read a book is something to be aspired to is because, as well as being a pleasant way to while away the hours, reading a novel is a good way to increase your sense of empathy or understanding of other people and their lives.

I’ve never been involved in a kite-flying competition which has led me to cut my hands on the string, or found myself jailed for years for no crime, but I’ve read books which have made me understand how it would feel if such events were to happen to me. A well-written book will make you have a sense of what it’s like to be someone else, somewhere else, often in another time, and I truly believe that this is a positive and enriching experience for any of us.

Add in the fact that reading a novel might increase your attention span, thus enabling you to read texts which might advance complicated theories or cover events spanning decades, and I think you can begin to see why I think people being able to read, and wanting to do so, is a good thing.

A lot of the coverage of the Harry Potter phenomenon has mentioned how the books have increased the number of children who read for pleasure (and I sincerely hope this is the case, though I have a niggling doubt that some children might want the book on its release date more as a status thing, an ‘object of desire’ than for reasons of reading it), and I like to think that World Book Day plays a part in promoting reading, and the accessibility of books generally, in much the same way.

So, if you have kids who’ve been given a £1 token (and even if not), I hope you’ll encourage them to visit a bookshop and pick up one of the specially-produced cheap World Book Day tomes. And even if you’re an adult, you could do worse than to pop into a bookshop over the next couple of days and have a browse. Chances are you’ll find something you like – and if you buy something at this time of year, publishers and booksellers may well see a ‘sales spike’ as being the direct result of the World Book Day promotion, and decide that it’s worth continuing with.

Which would, I think, be a good thing for writers, publishers, booksellers and readers alike. And given how broad the four groups I’ve just mentioned are, I think it would be little exaggeration to say: Everybody wins.

Writing: A Bit Of What

Given the previous post , I thought I it was only right to post an update on what writing I’ve been doing since… well, since the last time I posted about what’s on my writing list at present.

It’s not quite as busy as it could have been, but just last week I submitted my entry for a competition to write an advert for the new Patricia Cornwell paperback – in fact, you can view it here. The decision-making process is now underway, so if any of the judges are reading this, hello, I hope you’re well, and can I buy you a drink? Just being friendly, it’s not a bribe or anything, of course (actually, it looks as if a few people have already looked at it, and given me some votes, which is kind).

I’m also re-tooling ‘Broken Glass’, the screenplay I wrote for last year’s Red Planet Screenplay Competition. I’m of a mind to see about submitting it to this year’s British Short Screenplay Competition, though if I don’t make the deadline for that I’d like to have it finished anyway, for my own satisfaction.

Throw in the novels I’ve started (although one of them is, I found out over the weekend, similar to a well-respected foreign film in terms of several story beats, hmm), the novel I’ve finished and intend to start throwing at agents again, and the radio play which I really do have to get finished and off to the BBC Writers’ Room , and I like to think that’s about enough to keep me busy, at least for now.

Plus, of course , the 9-5 job and the arrangements for getting married in less than six months. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I’d forgotten either of those.

And no, I didn’t just add that previous sentence in case my boss or my beloved looks at this post. Honest.

Writing: A Bit Of Why

I’ve recently been reading Paul’s Rainey’s (brilliantly titled) 2000AD Prog Slog Blog, in which he works his way through 1,100 copies of the British weekly comic 2000AD (home of Judge Dredd). If you’re even remotely familiar with 2000AD, I’d recommend it highly – and indeed, the rest of Paul’s site is worth your time, especially The Book Of Lists, which features some very funny stuff.

One theme which I think comes through rather well in Paul’s write-ups is the discovery (or, as appears to be the case, re-discovery) of how the names of certain writers pop up in the credit boxes for the stories. This rang a bell for me – from a moderately early age I recall noting the names of artists (Terry Bave, Sid Burgons and the like) and writers (Tom Tully) in the comics I read. I knew I liked certain authors of books – Enid Blyton or Nicholas Fisk, for example – but in comics it seemed that there were fewer opportunities to figure out who was writing or drawing the strips, and this was something that I was interested in (please don’t take this as some kind of innate insight into the nature of publishing on my part; for some time, I believed that the copy of Krazy comic which was delivered every Saturday was actually drawn by the artists – so the above isn’t any kind of brag at precocity).

As I grew older and lost interest in humour comics (and the comics I liked merged into each other, trimming down my choices), I started to read superhero comics and adventure comics such as Tiger or 2000AD (and latterly the relaunched Eagle). I don’t recall offhand if there were credits in Tiger, but I noticed that certain writers in 2000AD and Eagle (John Wagner, Pat Mills, Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, to give key examples) were responsible for stories I enjoyed, and I started to look out for their names.

Attending a comic convention in (I think) 1986, the then-editor of 2000AD, Steve Macmanus, said that they were very keen to attract new writers, and probably motivated more by the idea of seeing my name in my favourite comic than any realisation that I had a deep-seated need to communicate with people, I started sending things in to 2000AD. I was using an old, smudge-prone typewriter, and at the start I was definitely formatting scripts in a rather haphazard way, and the pages were as spotted with Tipp-Ex as my teenage face was with acne, but I was writing, and enjoying it.

Now, if this was a memoir by a writer who’d made it big, this is the point where I’d talk about the rejections and the first sale and the further sales and so on, but I’m still plugging away at writing now, two decades on, with only a small degree of success. Then again, I’ve been ‘writing around’ college and latterly work, and not always giving it my full commitment, so perhaps I should be grateful even for that small degree.

But, reading Paul’s comments on spotting recurring names in 2000AD, I recalled a conversation I had with a friend a few years ago. We’d written a number of comedy sketches for TV (and I still feel they’re pretty good, even if he has now fled the UK for Spain in what appears to be a belated attack of shame), bundled them into a pretty spiffy series proposal (if nothing else, I can honestly claim that my formatting skills are much improved since the early days) and whilst they were being mulled over by a TV Production Company, we were talking about them in suitably cautious but optimistic tones.

We fell to discussing what would happen if the series was made, and did well, and so on, and m’colleague said, quite firmly (and to my mind rightly) that he didn’t want to be famous. Not, we agreed, that writers tend to get famous in the same way as actors or even directors do (cf the old gag about the wannabe actress who was so stupid she tried to get a better part in a film by sleeping with the writer), and in fact we concluded that even if you could make a good living as a writer the chances were you’d be able to walk down the street without any kind of attention being paid to you at all. Which we both agreed we liked.

I said, though, and I still feel it now, that I’d like to write things that might make people look out for my name in future, seeing it as a mark of something that could be of interest to them. So basically, I want to write, and reach a level of recognition where people would see my name as a kind of shorthand for stuff they might like. There are all sorts of elements to what I’d like to write and why (novels which receive acclaim and sell by the palletload which make points which people hadn’t previously been inclined to consider or discuss, screenplays which make children cheer and adults cry, comics which repay re-reading, and so on*), but what I’m talking about is the point at which I’d like to think I’d actually feel I’d ‘made it’. It’s less a thing of income, but more a level of recognition. And I’m painfully aware that wanting people to say “John Soanes? Didn’t he write that ‘Human Noises’ book? I liked that one”, in the same way that I do about other people’s work, is tantamount to me saying that I’d like to be noted as a writer by the kind of people who note the role of a writer. Which might be the same as saying I’d like to be recognised by people like me, a rather frightening notion.

And, I suddenly realise, not necessarily a million miles away from saying “John’s work was very popular amongst people who like that kind of thing”. Uh oh…

*Yes, yes, I’m painfully aware that these things actually need to be written by me for this to come to pass, but I’m talking in the abstract here. At least for now.

Page 18 of 24

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén