11 June 2010

Hair today, gorm today

Style before substance is not something anyone could accuse this little beauty of.

Simple, classic, and unlike style, attractive


A teaser, from Style Zero
The ladies swooned, to be brought to life only with a clod of chicken scat up a nostril. Men secreted themselves, unbuttoned sleeves as fat and slashed and colourful as candied-fruit-stuffed pheasants, and blew their noses into the embroidered cloth. Each man was suddenly as ashamed to be seen in what he stood in, as Adam was in the garden that suddenly wasn't Paradise.
—from my upcoming story "How Galligaskins Sloughed the Scourge" in Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine #46.

10 June 2010

The effects of star-power on a publication

Mike Allen, poet and editor/founder of Mythic Delirium has some pungent words (yes, they are not illuminating) about the power of a name.

09 June 2010

The mermaid and the sardine: Points of view and time

La Sirena & La Sardina
Now, if only they told their stories in the first person —
though would either, neither or both say, "I flap my tail . . ." ?



Hi Anna,
I've been working on on a story that is set in .... when it was .....
I wanted to explore the impact of ....on ......
Anyway I've got a favor to ask . . .
Hi . . .
I'm pleased that you're writing yet another story, and would be happy to look it over for you on one condition (and this is a subject that I almost brought up with you before). Please don't write it in the first person present. This is the default stance of most modern amateur writers, and it is a pain in the bum, to be honest. It is a faddish stance brought on by, I think, the overabundance of writing groups and classes, and the self-centredness of our times. The tense being the present is the primary wearier.

A natural stance for a story is to relate it in the simple past. It gives a distance to the reader and the narrator that is necessary for perspective, I think, and also allows a certain flexing in the tense. One can bring it forward to the present if needs be, for a reason. Or one can even go deeper into the past.

And as for the first person, this also is wearying. Unless the character has some character to explore, the protagonist being in the first person can lead to a preponderance of "I", and engender an unintended lack of sympathy for this person in the reader's mind. If there is a reason for the story to be told in the first person, to for instance, highlight the difference between this character's perceptions and that of the reader in what this person says and how this person reacts, then by all means, this point of view can be very effective and can add greatly to the story. If, however, the writer defaults to the first person, there are too damned many stories that are in the first person as this default.

So, is the story told as "I . . ." and is it told in the present tense? If not, great. Send it to me whenever you like. If it is either of these, and especially both, I beg of you to challenge yourself. Rewrite it in the simple past with an omniscient point of view. And if you couldn't be bothered and disagree with me, then I'm not the right person to read it now. I am OD'd.

So???

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Anna

Hi Anna,
Thanks for your email . . . The story is present tense . . . I've never been made aware of the logic you outlined but it does make sense. I will print out your brief and keep it near me when I re-write. I will also try and keep an eye out for the things you mention when I'm reading . . .


POSTSCRIPT: One intense and brilliantly effective story told in the present tense is Spar by Kij Johnson, in Clarkesworld Magazine. The point of view, however, is omniscient—and nothing in the writing of this story was done by default.

I can't think of any stories that work that are told in the first person present, but I'm sure that they exist. So please tell.

04 June 2010

Jayaprakash Sathyamurthy writes again

It can be a long time between drinks for those of us with a thirst for Jayaprakash Sathyamurthy's stories (I highly recommend Aranya's Last Voyage), so here's his latest: Empty Dreams

Quaff away
On the 1st of August, I look forward to featuring another new story by JS, in The Virtuous Medlar Circle.

03 June 2010

Persephone Books' special

From Nicola and Clara at Persephone Books, a small press that I've raved about before, repeatedly. I just love their books (and their bookmarks); and PB is a joy to order from:
"You may not realise but a huge proportion of books are returned by bookshops and then pulped because the cost of having them sent back to the publisher and cleaned up is far greater than printing new copies.

We could not go along with this because it so environmentally unfriendly, and asked for a thousand unsold Classics to be returned to Lamb's Conduit Street. This cost £500! Which makes the point that it is almost as cheap simply to throw away and reprint.

Sadly, most of the Classics are very slightly damaged: they either have a small mark or the remains of a bookshop sticker.

Since we cannot sell these either to our mail order customers or in the shop we have decided to give them away. So -- if you order one grey book at the normal price we will send you a free Classic. PLEASE DO NOT PAY FOR IT. Simply pay for your grey book as normal and write in the Additional Information box - free Miss Pettigrew Classic please, or something similar. (Nb. overseas books will be sent surface mail. And the offer only applies to one book.)"
There's been a lot of silly talk about the threat to publishers from electronic books. The horror is far worse in the system of "turnover" as maintained in today's hypermarts of commodified paper with printed words. Computers order with the taste and discretion of—computers—and stock must be sold within X# days or pulped like a day-old male chick.

It's great to see that Persephone Books is so revolted by this waste that they have paid to save the books for readers with human discretion (even if the PB special caters to base instincts—I've never been able to stop at just one book).

Drop in to Persephone's candy shop Books

30 May 2010

Back home, celebrating bees

Well, that was a short trip, complicated by President Obama's announcement. Hahahaha!

Ask not whether astronauts can get to an asteroid — ask what the astroidians think of that. Although my publishers there had planned my itinerary, and samples of my latest book were boxed for tastings in every supermarket on the rock, central-government authorities stepped in because of disease fears. As I reported earlier, they quarantined me on Waystation Limbo because they calculated that I would be a "risk"— the Twitter Anna of Asteroid * even though I assured them I am clean. I not only don't tweet, but hardly ever crow.

But their trust in me was shaken by another earthy epidemic that is only now abating: Facebook. They do keep up with our manias, so the problem there is that, though I've never Facebook'd and have always hated its subteen-tackiness, my astroidian friends (and I thought I had a few close friends) think I've only used them, that they are friends of convenience. How do you reassure friends of a very other culture and atmosphere that they really are friends in the pre-Facebook sense? I haven't been able to, so these past weeks have been worse than purgatory in Waystation Limbo. There are many travellers there because Asteroid * has stringent border controls, and Waystation Limbo is both conveniently out of sight and unfortunately, out of mind.

When travellers get bored, they get hungry, and on Waystation Limbo this means dangerous. I hitched a certain shuttle home, though a patch on our beautiful blue ball makes Earth look like a boiled humbug--all that swirling orange and black.

There is so much to explore here. If you can get to London, go see BUZZ: A Celebration of British Bees & their Flowers.

The show features paintings and drawings by Valerie Littlewood, portraitist to the true royals. I've written about her works before, here. Her sitters are happily, live.

21 April 2010

Log scene


This is the last post on this blog for at least an earthly year, as I'm taking off to Asteroid * again.

19 April 2010

Gail Carriger's genre writing: General Delight

Winifred Watson is lucky to have escaped genre classification in her Wikipedia entry, though she didn't escape a giddy dumbed-down movie adaptation of her book. Still, the superb publisher that rescued her masterpiece Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (one of my favourite reads in the past ten years—a very funny understated satire with compassion) and published it in a typically beautiful edition (I love their attitude to covers, fly papers, and bookmarks) doesn't genrepak her either. As they say about themselves, "Persephone Books reprints neglected classics by C20th (mostly women) writers. Each one in our collection of 86 books is intelligent, thought-provoking and beautifully written, and most are ideal presents or a good choice for reading groups."

She reminds me of Gail Carriger, who is fated to be listed in Wikipedia, and I hope frustrates all attempts to label her. She is an emerging great writer whose first novel, Soulless, in the Parasol Protectorate Trilogy, proved to me that a reader can be all ready to dismiss something because it's everything that reader hates—and lose so much.


I can't say the book didn't warn me. It says on the cover, A novel of vampires, werewolves, and parasols. Vampires! Yawn! Werewolves! Zzzz. It's even Steampunk! Parasols? Well, uh. Another meal-in-one proudly made just for you by Rehash. Our promise to you: You can't overcook it because it already is. Each meal comes with its own fun-fashion plaque-scrubbing-toothpick parasol, but all our meals are guaranteed fiber-free. Find our products in the Unfresh section of your supermarket.

I'm not much of a partier but I ended up at her launch party. It was in such good taste that I looked for a seller of the book the next day because there were none offered in the launch and no readings and praise for her. A model book launch, imo! Only amazing food with great attention to historical detail, and a wonderful array of people from the book (her friends in fiction-mufti) acting as hosts for the party. They (and her mother) made the food. I would have shoved one of her mother's Scotch eggs (not the overly corrected modern "Scottish" ones but the classic, good enough for Eliza Acton, who called them "Scotch") down the front of my dress to eat in private finger-licking greed later, but some Amazon sylph sidled up and purred "protein bomb". She was tall enough to look down my dress too, and would have seen my third breast, so all I could do was flit my fingers amongst the heavenly candied peel.

Still, nothing would have convinced me I would like the book, but I had to do something in the hell that is a Qantas flight home to Australia—and its cover does entice. Once I opened the book, I resented having to close it for any reason, till the end, when I really truly sighed with pleasure. Soulless now resides on my physical bookshelf, quite an honour that the thousands of other books of mine could only wish for. They get: piles.

That said, I said that Carriger is an "emerging great writer", and at the moment she does seem to be a caterpillar almost surfeited with praise. Soulless is on my shelf not because it is a great book, but because it defied my expectations, and gave me expectations. This book is a delicious read, a joy, a very light read with no pretensions—and that is a great achievement. It is, however, a very deliberate construction, its elements as costed as every ingredient in a Heinz All-Day-Breakfast. The characters in Soulless manage to avoid being caricatures by the skin of Carriger's skill, and issues in the book won't bruise any reader's prejudices or grey matter. I'm not saying Message and Politics and Meaning are necessary. Indeed, save us from them as they are often served out. Shelves aplenty groan with the weight of self-righteous and self-justifying inedibles. (Which reminds me of the guy who complained that he just wanted to go to an axe-murder movie for a break from living in war zones, and what did the movie give him? A political message!)

But I think that if Carriger were to put her soul into a book, really scrape her soul into it like the beans from a vanilla pod or the skin from her hands, that could be a truly great book. Carriger has the skill to be a master of subterfuge—to serve up liver-and-sump-oil cocktails if she mixed them, and have us demand from her: More! as we lick the parasol stirring sticks.

Carriger has perfect timing, made me laugh out loud till I was obnoxious, and would definitely change Wodehouse's mind about female novelists. He would admire her. Part of her strength comes from understatement, something rare in today's fiction. She takes as much care with her choice of words as Wodehouse, Wilde, Flann O'Brien, and Mae West—they hit the spot.

Another element of Carriger's fiction might surprise. There's a cherry in the lump of chocolate. In contrast to her sex scenes, Houellebecq's are as sexy as a drunk's grope (actually, he doesn't need the contrast—that's just how he writes), and there's not a Manolo whoreshoe in her books. Her rompcomerotics won't, I think, age any more than the fun of doing something forbidden at high risk of getting caught. It doesn't matter what she writes about, however. With her expertise, she could write novels so boring she could win top lit awards—but she has chosen well: her skill as a novelist to delight is already so well developed that it could be called voluptuous; and she flaunts it. But there is no category for General Delight, more's the pity.

The only criticism I have of this trilogy (for which Orbit deserves high praise) is that the otherwise perfectly suited model with character plus on the covers hasn't Alexia Tarabotti's curves. She needs to either eat some Scotch eggs, or shove them down her dress.

And by the way, Carriger's blog is as delightful as her books. Food, tea, mores, and more.

18 April 2010

Volcano clouds spelling at The Times

Too good to leave unprinted, this was the headline for a while today till some wowser stepped in to end the fun. I challenge you to label this, though. In three attempts, I still got the misspelling wrong.