The Right Way to Write

Image courtesy of Photos8.com

I've just read an interesting article in the New York Times on typos.

Echoing the writer's view, I'd agree that for some writers, it's all about the story, while for others, it's more about the words.

In the dim and (thankfully) distant past, I've had occasion to (or the misfortune of) reading some pretty scathing reviews on works by popular authors, most notably James Patterson, Dan Brown and Jeffery Archer. The tone of the reviewers was snooty, supercilious, patronizing (to the reader) and ultimately infused with a sense of "we know good writing and this ain't it!" It was very much a case of a narrow metropolitan elite, grounded in a very narrow interpretation of literature, broadcasting their views on what is 'good literature'.

The operative word here is: their.

I think there's a strange sense, predominently in the 'arty' side of culture, where mass appeal is seemingly a bad thing. I'm probably comparing oranges with pears, but it doesn't appear to work that way with consumer products, e.g. The iPhone.

Just to declare an interest in this debate: I am an unashamed populist.

I love commercial fiction and taut, concise, descriptive language with short words and minimal exposition. Perhaps this is due to my former career as a journalist who had to crunch things down to the essence.

Back to the reviewers/critics: Comments ranged from poor plotting, poor spelling, poor characterization, etc. I think it is poor form to slate a book in its entirety, especially given how much effort someone has put into it.

It's so much easier pulling things down than building them up. Thank God critics are rapidly becoming a spent force.

Criticism, whether good or bad, should be left to readers.

Reportedly, James Patterson was criticized by another bestselling author Stephen King for being a "terrible writer". Patterson's response: "I am not a great prose stylist. I'm a storyteller. There are thousands of people who don't like what I do. Fortunately, there are millions who do."

Get writing.

New Sunday Tabloid?

Just read an interesting bit of speculation in the Guardian on the Daily Mail Group considering launching a new Sunday tabloid.

My money's on "The Sunday Metro".

The Mail Group has owned the domain name since 2001.

Watch that space.

I have to keep reminding myself that this blog is for writing on writing...and not the media!

Slapped wrist!

:-)

"Mistakes, I've made a few..."

Image courtesy of Photos8.com

At certain points of my professional life, I've been an editor: in print, radio, television and for internet projects. The technical requirements are subtly different, but the principle is the same: to provide a piece of work that is clear, concise, consistent and 'captivating'.

The craft of an editor requires many months...if not years, of learning the basics of grammar and how words hang together (see collocations.) You also learn that words and language are 'alive' and that rules need to be broken now and then. Which brings me the long way round to the issue of mistakes, errata, errors, the mea culpa, screwing up, etc...

Is it ever acceptable to sign off a piece of work that you know has errors?

John Hunt, my dear, departed journalism lecturer would have responded with an emphatic, expletive-laden "No!"

Although I'd agree with him (bar the spicy language), it has to be a qualified agreement. My experience has taught me that: "it depends..."

It depends on the circumstances: on whether you have a deadline...or the material is time-sensitive...or a host of other factors.

In these days of rapid 'information turnover', the human factor is another consideration with the question. People, no matter how professional, make mistakes - some of them big ones.

I have a huge number of books, now mostly digital, and every one of them contains a mistake or ten. Yes, books which have gone through several editing cycles and have been seen by many eyes. I was taught to see this as unforgivable, but, given my editing experience and the grinding pace of the production process (even with digital books), I've become less 'precious'.

Digital media means we can print immediate retractions or revisions when a mistake has been identified.

This bodes well for writers in all media. Readers have already become part of the extended editing team and often let you know - sometimes in no uncertain terms - when you've got it wrong.

Write on...

Poll

One of the reasons I left journalism was that, although it was one of the most exciting, unpredictable and exhilarating areas of work I've been involved in, it was also one of the most reactionary, morally dubious, hostile and insufferably 'unmeritocratic'.



Perhaps that's because journalism has always been a trade and not a profession, as with doctors, accountants and lawyers. Journalists do a great job in promoting themselves and creating a air of mystique around their craft. However, the internet has put paid to notions of their supremacy/superior skills in critically analyzing a story, or indeed being the most authoritative voice for breaking news.

There are some excellent practitioners out there, but sadly, the echoes of their work gets drowned out by the screaming headlines of the hacks whose home is the gutter press. Forgive the tortured prose...

By the way, some of my best friends are journalists. Honest!

RIP News of the World, RIP Journalism?

I've been following the phone hacking story with interest for a number of reasons.
(1) I worked as a journalist (print, radio and television) for around twenty years.
(2) My Masters thesis was entitled, "Final drink at the Last Chance Saloon", which focused on self-regulation versus statutory regulation of the British press.
(3) I was asked by a News of the World journalist whether I was advising any celebrities.

I've interviewed tabloid journalists and have come across them 'in the field', but have never once aspired to being one. I admire the style of writing: crisp, concise, incisive, entertaining, irreverent, but - especially in the case of the hacking - so very morally bankrupt that it defies imagination.

I'm developing a story about a journalist who is confronted by the consequences of the impact of their words. Does it provide a moment of clarity to them. Or does it reinforce the trenchant views that are normally held by hacks who are so far away from the people they write about, that they see them as mere fodder for hostile commentary? We shall see. This one should be out in the next few months.

Desperado

Bandits, cowboys, chaps, spurs, chaps, cowhide boots, posses, sheriffs and six-shooters, the classic Western was a time where life was simple: the bad guys were bad and the good guys were good. They both hated each other and vowed to chase or outgun the other to win the day.

Desperado, the short story is about a modern man dealing with modern problems, who is caught up in a predicament that echoes the plight of a cowboy forced into a showdown with a badass from the East.

You an read an excerpt here.

Significance

How much does background matter?

This is one of the questions preoccupying the mind of James King, the main character in Significance.

All societies, be they in developed or developing nations, have a pecking order based on totally made up notions of importance. The people 'at the top' will promote - like a cure for cancer - and defend - to the death - their divine right to the 'best' schools, jobs, neighbourhoods, opportunities, financial products, etc. They don't want the people 'at the bottom' - the great unwashed - getting anywhere near grabbing distance of these treasures.

The ones who try to make it through are advised to be prepared to run the gauntlet of derision, ridicule, hostility and resentment before they're accepted. If ever.

Set mostly in New York's Upper East Side, this short story is very much about a man living the American Dream who faces the reality that sometimes, it's just not enough.

This man wanted much more. He wanted something that money just couldn't buy.

You can read an excerpt here.