Are you sure Sir? It does mean changing the bulb

The leaves at my local leisure centre

I feel like I’m spinning out of control (the spinning class was horrendous by the way, thanks for asking).  It’s Autumn, my favourite time of the year.  The leaves are changing colour, the nights are drawing in, I’ve dug out my favourite jumper and thick bed socks and my fingers are hovering over the thermostat ready to put the heating on. 

It’s also time for all the good television to come on.  New series’ are springing up everywhere; Modern Family, Spy, The Walking Dead (more news coming next week), Cuckoo, Red Dwarf X...

Last night, the second episode of Red Dwarf X aired.  The first episode is nerve wracking, the second episode is only slightly less nerve wracking.  Will it still be funny?  Will all of the effort have been put into the first episode and the other episodes ignored?

The second episode featured time travel, the father and son relationship and a new ships computer.  It was a full bodied episode.

There were fewer laugh out loud moments, in fact I think I only laughed out loud once (the guitar moment was brilliant) but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy it.

I am delighted to say that I didn’t cringe as much.  Lister still feels a bit forced, as does the dialogue between him and the Cat but this seemed to ease as time went on.  It made me think about the first series and how effortless Dave Lister was back then.  I wondered if our original Lister would ever return but by the end of this episode Lister felt a lot more comfortable.  The issue here is that some of Lister’s characteristics have been muddled, or temporarily lost.  Lister is intelligent, he just chooses not to use it, he’s a good man and quick witted, he’s kind, he enjoys annoying Rimmer and he’s a slob. As Red Dwarf has evolved Lister has become less about the intelligence and frustration and more about the slobbiness.  This episode showed a new insight into that lost intelligence and quick wit.  Welcome back Lister, I hope you’re back to stay.

Rimmer is still my favourite character.  He remains to be the most effortless character and we had a good reminder of his character, his poor technician skills and taste in women.   By the way, does anyone know what that strange noise business at the beginning of the episode was about?

The Cat is still very forced, although I hope he will soften as time goes on.  Kryten, although spending a lot of time with Rimmer in this episode, also has his own storyline with the Cat featuring Chinese Whispers which promised to be very funny.  Sadly this seemed to dissipate into forced and silly gags and was lost in the climax.

In this episode, Kryten and Rimmer install a new computer, Pree, who has predictive powers.  These predictive powers can become very complicated, as with time travel, and here is an episode that features both!  This means that the ending is questionable.  It felt rushed.  I understand that they are near death and in a panic but it felt that the magic was lost because of this.   I found myself waiting for the ‘are you sure sir?  It does mean changing the bulb’ moment but none was forthcoming.  Not only should Pree have known what Lister did before he did it, but even if we ignore that fact his details were not with the medi bot at that time (were they?) so he still didn’t count as a crew member as he had no way of escaping to complete these details.

 

Don’t get me started on the medi bot.  Utterly terrifying!  I miss the old Red Dwarf ship, I miss the scutters and I miss Holly but I don’t miss them enough for it to ruin my enjoyment of the show.  After having a sneak peak of the third episode, I’m really looking forward to it.

So great television has returned to our screens, the day job has gotten very busy as the summer is now definitely over and I have more writing projects on now than ever before.  Something might have to give...

Let’s get physical

Oh woe is the writer!

The majority of us have to suffer day jobs to pay the bills, enjoy time with our wonderful families and write (naturally), as well as a million other little things.  Just how do you fit everything into seven days every week?  It’s exhausting and such a headache.

On the other hand, you have enormous passion for something incredible, you exercise your mind on a regular basis and, if you’re up for the challenge, you can have two careers!  Who else can say that?

I am embarking on the two career route, I’m at the beginning of the family path, I seem to have already stumbled down the housewife road (how did I manage that?) and now I’m about to start a new challenge to get fit, all while writing, editing and reading my way to being published.

Phew!

Marriage has taken its toll on me.  After a year of wedded bliss I have put on weight.  Unfortunately this came at the same time as the clothing retailers silently changing their sizes (it’s a conspiracy), both of which have resulted in me going up a trouser size.

Well, no more!  I cry.

Yesterday I wrote out a schedule incorporating my day job (career 1), my writing (career 2), my wifely duties (cleaning, food shopping, cooking, oh the joy) and exercise.  I even colour coded it.

I’ve done this before without success but this time will be different.  My first ever spinning class is booked for tomorrow (gulp) and I’ve told you all about it.  So now I have to go through with it.

You see, that is another problem with writers.  Besides the fact that there is never enough time in the day (or night), writing is very much a sitting occupation.  Oh we might be running in our heads, but in reality we sit at our computer, day in, night out, tapping away.  If your day job is an office job, chances are you’re sat for over seven hours a day before you even get to any writing.

Physical exercise can clear the cobwebs from your mind.  It can help you solve problems and allow for a new or clear way of thinking.  Exercise is not just about your body, it’s about your mind.  Even if you’re just taking the dog for a walk, it all helps the creative mind to function, not to mention a breath of fresh air always makes you feel better.

Sadly, dog walking and housework is no match for my marriage weight and so I am bound for the leisure centre.  You never know, it might just improve my writing.  Wish me luck!

Why so series-us?

What do Stephanie Meyer, J K Rowling, Terry Pratchett and Paul Magrs all have in common?

They’ve all written a series!

When I was researching, believing myself ready to submit a fantasy novel to publishers and agents, I came across one thing, over and over.  Publishers love their fantasy in threes.  The general notion seemed to be that if you can make your story into a trilogy, it is more likely to sell.

As a reader, I disagree with this.  I would rather read one stand alone book then a trilogy.  I thoroughly enjoyed Northern Lights of the His Dark Materials trilogy (Phillip Pullman), for example, but The Amber Spyglass actually annoyed me and was a battle to finish.  I adore The Blade Itself of the The First Law trilogy (Joe Abercrombie) but couldn’t for the life of me tell you what happened in The Last Argument of Kings.  I couldn’t even remember off hand the titles of these third books!

On the other hand, I am an ardent fan of the Discworld series (Terry Pratchett), the Brenda and Effie series (Paul Magrs) and Joe Abercrombie in general who’s novels all feature the same world and reoccurring characters (I read with longing that Logan Ninefingers and/or Glokta will reappear).

Yes, I dislike trilogies but love a good series.  What’s the difference?

A trilogy tells the same story over the course of three books.  While I have repeatedly read that all trilogy books should be able to stand alone, this simply isn’t true and if you want any closure for your new favourite characters, you must read all three.  Three books are not many, but have you noticed that many trilogies grow in size as they go on?  The final book is always the thickest and suddenly gaining that closure becomes a marathon.

A series tells the story or stories of a set of characters in the same location.  This can be as varied as the writer wants and can make work.  It may be that a series stretches across a whole world (Pratchett’s Discworld), a country or two (George R. R. Martin’s Westoros and across the Narrow Sea) or a town (Whitby in Magrs’ Brenda and Effie series).  It could focus on a small set of characters (Brenda, Effie and friends) or a whole cast full (Rincewind, Vimes, Vetinari, The Librarian, Susan, Death, Colon, Nobby Nobbs, Carrot, Tiffany, Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg to name a few and that is not counting the one off characters through the whole series).

A series is something special, it is something that readers become loyal to.  It is the equivalent of joining a group of friends on a new adventure.  You live and breathe there with them and look forward to when you can return to them.

A series is also a sure fire way to make a publisher a lot of money.  Once one book has a readership, the whole series has a readership and the longevity of the books relies on the number of books in the series.  Not to mention that someone may discover a book fairly late and then catch up through the backlog, resulting in more sales and an ever increasing customer base.

Whatever the series you hope to create, there are some constants which must remain throughout;

• Locations must remain familiar.  Feel free to introduce new locations, of course, but make sure they are repeated throughout the series.
• Have a cast of reoccurring protagonists.
• How about some reoccurring antagonists?  This will differ depending on the series.  Crime stories will require different protagonists throughout, but how about that serial killer that got away?

While a series should have constants, it is also very important that each book work as a stand alone story.  This is where it becomes tricky!  A series can/should have a main issue or story that is worked on throughout (the game of thrones in A Song of Fire and Ice, Brenda’s fight for a normal life in the Brenda and Effies books) but each book must have its own story with a beginning, middle and ending giving the reader closure.

You also want to ensure that anyone can dip into the middle of your series and still be immediately hooked without wondering what the hell is going on and being forced to find the first book.

How about a sub series?  Within the Discworld series there are the City Watch series, the Witch series, the Wizard series…if you have a large cast of characters this might be one way of dividing stories.  It also gives way to marketing opportunities – which is your favourite Discworld sub series?

Why not experiment?  Both of my current novels are the beginnings of series’.  One will rely on three main characters with some minor reoccurring characters.  The other will rely on a world, with reoccurring characters but a new story and point of view each time.  I’m actually very excited to see where both will lead me.

As with all writing, there are exceptions to all of these rules.  When it comes down to it, write what you love but make sure it works.




Fancy a bit more?  Check these links out -
www.bestsellerlabs.com/the-hottest-tip-no-fiction-writer-can-afford-to-ignore
http://www.joeabercrombie.com
http://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/ 
http://lifeonmagrs.blogspot.co.uk/


 
 

Smoke me a kipper...

Through Gaynmede and Titan,

yes sir I’ve been around. 

But there ain’t no place,

in the whole of space,

 like this good old toddlin’ town.

I remember the first time I saw Red Dwarf.  I was very young and couldn’t sleep so I wandered into the living room where my parents were sat watching television.  They had Red Dwarf on and let me watch it until the end when I had to go back to bed.

That was my first taste and I loved it.

For anyone who has no idea what I’m talking about, Red Dwarf is a science fiction sitcom.  Set in deep space, the mining ship Red Dwarf lost all of its crew to a radiation leak.  The only survivors were Dave Lister (Craig Charles) who was in suspended animation and his pregnant pet cat who was safely sealed in the hold.  Three million years later, Lister is awakened and joined by Arnold Rimmer (Chris Barrie), a hologram of his former bunkmate, Cat (Danny John-Jules), a creature which evolved from Lister’s cat and Kryten (Robert Llewellyn), a service mechanoid which the crew discovered in a derelict ship.

Other reoccurring characters include Holly (Norman Lovett/Hattie Hayridge), the ships computer, and Kristine Kochanski (Chloe Annett), the lost love of Lister’s life brought into the crew during an alternative reality episode.

I have been enjoying Dave’s countdown to the new series of Red Dwarf, now showing on Dave, Thursdays 9pm.  I especially relished in reminding myself of the very first series which was starkly different to the proceeding episodes.  Series 1 is duller in colour and focuses purely on Lister, Rimmer, Cat and Holly.  Kryten first appears in series 2.

This isn’t to say that the proceeding series’ are bad, in fact they are brilliant, right up until series 7 when Red Dwarf sadly lost it for me. 

A number of changes were made after series 6, including the loss of the live studio audience which was of particular importance to the atmosphere of the programme, the introduction of Kochanski and loss of Rimmer.

I never liked the new Kochanski much.  To me, Red Dwarf has always been about a group of men, one dead, one mechanoid, one a new species and one the last human left alive, living together in the depths of space.  To bring a woman into the mix ruined the humour balance and destroyed the sexual tension of Lister (interestingly I had no problem with the female version of Holly).

I stopped watching Red Dwarf during series 7 and so have missed the last two and a half. Series 10 of Red Dwarf is back in front of that live studio audience, Kochanski is gone and Rimmer is back in full Arnold glory.  The first episode aired last Thursday to much anticipation.

I was sat in the cinema loving Looper when it aired so I missed the nerves and the dreadful hope that it would live up to its origins.  A quick check of Twitter when I returned home told me that it had been well received and I had no reason to worry.

Still, when I watched it yesterday I was still a little nervous.  These are characters that I grew up with and loved and I was worried that this new series would be the end of them.  So you can imagine how thrilled I was when I reached my first laugh out loud moment.  I was even more thrilled when I discovered it wasn’t the only laugh out loud moment.

While the interaction between Cat and Lister felt a little silly and predictable, it was Rimmer that I felt drawn to.  Perhaps he has always been the most developed character and the funniest, but the focus has always previously been on Lister.  During the first and second series, the interaction between Lister and Rimmer was something of pure comedy gold.  Now, it seems, Rimmer can do it on his own.

That isn’t to say that Kryten, Lister and Cat aren’t also back on form.  Of course they are, heart warmingly so, although I can’t say that I like Kryten’s new head.  The first episode was a success, with only a few moments where I felt the need to cringe.  It isn’t back to its original glory but then how could it be?  People change, times change and Red Dwarf long ago evolved far away from its roots.  All I could expect (and wanted) was a new series with the characters I love so much and some belly laughs and that is what this first episode delivered.  I await episode 2 with great anticipation.

What a shame that Holly is not back.

Closing the Looper

**SPOILER ALERT**

It’s been a long time since I went to the cinema.  It was to see Brave, surrounded by enthralled children.  Last night, full of cinema withdrawal, I saw Looper which was a much more adult experience.  The trailers didn’t promise much.   Paranormal Activity 4 which looked scary but from what I’ve seen of the Paranormal Activity franchise, that piece of scariness was probably it.  Sinister, which actually looked quite good if I could cope with films of that nature.  Skyfall, boring, boring, boring and Bullet In The Head which was dripping with testosterone and so macho I nearly choked on my M&Ms.  It made me a little worried about Looper, if I’m honest.

I needn’t have worried.  Looper is fast paced, gripping and a testament to the writers and actors.  I haven’t left a cinema that exhilarated since The Dark Knight.

Time travel doesn’t exist yet but it does thirty years in the future.  Outlawed, it is used only by the big criminals.  Bodies are hard to dispose of in the future, so they take their mark, send them thirty years in the past where as assassin kills them and disposes of the corpse.  These assassins are known as loopers.  When their bosses choose to end the agreement, they send the looper’s older counterpart back to be killed.  The looper does the deed, takes the gold payment and lives out their last thirty years.  This is called closing the loop.

Just the premise alone is enough to get me hot under the collar.  But many a film has an exciting premise and then falls apart.  The worry with Looper is that it involves time travel which is notoriously difficult to pull off.  Time travel can never be infallible; there will always be plot holes and parts that just don’t make sense.  What the writers of Looper have done is cleverly disguise these holes until they are barely noticeable.  It is only when you wake up the next morning that they begin to occur to you and by then it’s too late, you’ve already fallen for the film.

Or maybe this was just me.  I woke up with questions but instantly forgave Looper all of its indiscretions because I enjoyed it so much.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe) was unrecognisable.  He brilliantly mimicked Willis’ trademark looks and gestures and so when Bruce Willis (older Joe) makes an appearance, their performance as one character is flawless.  Bruce Willis gave a performance to remind viewers just what he is capable of, not just an action hero.  Emily Blunt (Sara) also showed her acting prowess and despite being introduced fairly late she is a well rounded individual that the viewers can immediately like and empathise with.  On a side note, keep an eye out for Garret Dillahunt (Bert in Raising Hope).

I admit I was concerned at the beginning.  The world in which Joe lives in is gritty, dark and depressing.  It is filled with poverty, drugs and prostitutes and this, naturally, makes me uneasy.  As with all good films that start off with this uneasiness, my fears were unfounded.  These particular topics were not focused upon and yet were dealt with the brutality that they deserve.  Ultimately, however, this is a film about love.  The love a mother has for her son, a love a son has for his mother, a love a man has for his wife.  Actually, the parental relationship is a key theme throughout as children are abandoned for a life of drugs and partying.  Even Joe’s boss, played superbly by Jeff Daniels, is an incarnation of Dickens’ Fagin, a father figure for the desperate, recruiting young boys and putting a gun in their hands.

There were a couple of aspects that truly blew me away with this film.  Firstly the concept of meeting ones future self.  I loved the interaction between Gordon-Levitt and Willis and instantly began to wonder what my future self would make of me now.  These two men are one character and yet they are so different, not only because people grow and change as they age but because of the different paths they have taken despite being one and the same.  This is an original concept that allows the viewer to see how decisions in early life can change everything – where we grow old, the people we love, our opinions and regrets.

This is cleverly portrayed by these characters being similar enough for it to be believable that they are the same person but also differing on enough aspects for the viewer to generate separate opinions on each.

The other aspect which left me wide eyed and in awe was Pierce Gagnon who plays Cid, a ten year old boy.  In this present, some people have developed minor telekinesis skills and Cid’s scenes are what the X-Men franchise could have been.  The special effects, coupled with the soundtrack, make his anger and fear truly spectacular.  His acting is impeccable for one so young and Cid is both sweet and devastating all at once.

Gagnon not only plays Cid seamlessly and beautifully but the writers have created an incredible character in this boy.  One moment you’re terrified, the next you want to hold him and protect him.  Through this boy, the film questions the nature/nurture argument and will rip you apart as you will nurture to win.  The nature/nurture theory could also arguably be applied to Joe, abandoned by his mother as a child and left alone in the world before he became the youngest looper.  It is therefore surprisingly that he is such a well rounded individual but this makes his dreams all the more poignant.

Cid is only one fantastic part that makes Looper a triumph.  This film is gory, disturbing, heart breaking and funny.  It is everything I wanted and needed in a film.

My only piece of advice when watching Looper is not to think too much about the time travel.  Just accept it as it is given. 

Don’t question, just enjoy.

The third point of view

Following on from my previous post aboutpoints of view, I’ve done a little more thinking and research into the subject.

I was a little disappointed that only one person responded to my poll, so whoever you are, thank you!  You preferred the 3^rd person point of view.

There are three types of 3^rd person;

• Omniscient – A narrative written as if the story is told from the powers-that-be or god’s point of view.  Basically an all knowing, all seeing, wide narrative that can encompass anything and everything.

• Objective – This is similar to watching a film.  The narrative describes the scene but not the character’s emotions, so all emotion must always be shown rather than told.

• Limited omniscient/Multiple point of view – This is the most popular and the only 3^rd point of view that I have used.  The narrative describes the scene but can also dip in and out of different characters’ heads.  This means that the reader can be given information that the characters don’t know but also get to go inside the character’s heads and find out what they’re thinking and feeling.

In my previous post I mentioned that it is commonly accepted on the internet that 1^st person point of view is very difficult to pull off but the one that most beginning novelists choose.  I don’t relate to this.  All of my writing was in the 3^rd person until I wrote Previously-Known-As-Silver.  This is my only piece of long work to be written in the 1^st person.  Unfortunately it’s also the first novel that I’ve seriously submitted to publishers and agents (my first novel was written in the 3^rd person and got me my first rejections but my heart wasn’t in the submitting).

While visiting a forum I regularly check into, I was reminded once again of how subjective writing is.  One person was complaining about the use of the 3^rd person point of view in the A Song of Fire and Ice novels.  This is not something I would have ever expected.  I read Game of Thrones with complete respect for the structure.  George R. R. Martin dedicates each chapter to one character's point of view, for example one chapter is told entirely from Aryas point of view and the next from Tyrions.  I found it fascinating yet here on the forum there was someone complaining about it.  A discussion then broke out, from people defending the 3^rd person and Martin’s choice of how to use it to those simply discussing the validity of the structure and pointing out all of the different and, sometimes, wonderful ways to use a point of view.

Well there you go.  There it is, in a nutshell.  Once again, a discussion on writing can only be concluded with the fact that writing is subjective.  Write what you know, write what you love and write it for you.

Of course, that’s complete rubbish if you want to get published but it’s an excellent starting point.  If you want to get published you must study the market.  What authors do you want to be compared to and what do they do?

Last night I opened up my latest novel and did a print preview, just to get an overall image of the book as a whole.  It was only then that I realised I was head hopping.  Naughty me.

So I have decided to take a leaf out of Joe Abercrombie’s book, as I’m currently reading The Heroes.  I like how Abercrombie makes every chapter a scene from a different character’s point of view.  I don’t have as many characters as his novels but I am hoping that using his method will give my characters an extra dimension by allowing me and the reader to really focus on them for a chapter at a time, and I imagine it will also change the plot slightly, as the characters take me in new directions during the rewrite.  It’s made me more excited about my book, not only to feel I’m overcoming a hurdle but that it might actually be as good as I want it to be.

Where does that leave Previously-Known-As-Silver?  I don’t know yet.  I still feel adamant that this is a story that should be written in the 1^st person.  While a 3^rd person point of view may give the plot a bit of added depth, my original mission was to get into my protagonist’s head.  I would also like to go against the supposed theory that ‘1^st person is for novices’ and be able to write an engaging novel in the 1^st person. 

Only time will tell which way I decide to go with this one.

Where the fear can lead

Office Space.  A film.  Watch it!

I had a job interview today, at 3.30pm.

3.30pm!

By 2.30pm I was shaking and I was hungry but too scared to eat anything because I felt so sick.  I hope I never have a job interview so late in the day ever again.

(I am blood of the dragon.  I am blood of the dragon.  I am blood of the dragon)

I found myself wondering why we put ourselves through such scary things (not to mention why is a job interview this scary?).  I hate the feeling of being scared and having to wait, I’d much rather just get it over with and then forget about it.

That got me to thinking about other scary things that we have to go through (which didn’t help!).  It’s amazing how many scary things are connected to some of the best moments in your life.  That job interview that will give you a promotion, the idea of going into labour that will give you a beautiful baby, going up and saying hello to the attractive person in the corner when they might be the love of your life.

What about a writer’s first book signing or interview?  How about standing up in front of a crowd of people and giving a reading from your book or giving a talk about your personal journey into the published world?

It’s a great sign of success but also so scary to contemplate that I’ve never really given it much thought.  And why should I?  Writers are supposed to be quiet individuals who lock themselves away and live amongst the written word.  Not the spoken word, especially not while stood up in front of a crowd.

In theory, we need to learn to embrace these scary moments.  They are a mark of success and can lead onto greater things.  After all, that’s why they are so scary; if we muck it up then it could all be over.

Writers (and job interviewees) need to learn coping skills in order to manage the fear (this is where the theory can fall down).

My personal methods are;

• Distraction – I had a meeting at work before my interview which almost did the trick!
• Logic – what will be, will be.  I can only do my best and I always have a Plan B and possibly C as back up.
• Kalms – mine are buried away today so I forgot to take them.
• Relaxing – deep breaths and shaking it out.
• Not having an interview at the end of the working day – if only I had a choice!

So deep breath and remember that you are entitled to this success!