Writing Angry

For my new book I have temporarily left behind the period of 1066 and taken up a new subject in the guise of an alternative history story based upon the popular ‘what if?’ premise. I did not start out with the intention of writing an alternative history it is just that this genre proved to be a very suitable vehicle for the story that I want to tell. There is still a considerable amount of research to be carried out in the name of authenticity, just as with Historical Fiction. It may be an alternative account but that does not mean that I can abandon everything prior to the moment in time when actual and fictional history diverge, if I did that then really it would be a fantasy novel but what I want is something with a bit more relevance to the real world and I think that fantasy might lack the kind of bite I am looking for.

Once I had chosen the genre and did the preparatory research I started writing and it all came together very quickly. I had already assembled a team of beta readers and it did not take me very long to provide them with the prologue and opening chapter for them to read, digest and critique. One of the more interesting responses to come out of the early stages of the read was that there was a lot of anger behind the text.

Now this observation came from someone who knows me very well and has done so for many years. I think that the relationship we have with each other has allowed them an insight into my writing that most of the other beta readers lack, which is not a bad thing as it clearly gives a different kind of perspective on my work.

The other point to perhaps to consider is that I am writing about some of the subjects from a genuine point of experience; some of these things happened to me! I call my new novel ‘Eugenica’ and it examines what might have happened if Britain, the birthplace of modern Eugenics, had gone done down the path of eugenics based social and health policies in the 1930’s. Other countries actually took this route, Norway, America, Canada and, perhaps most notoriously, Germany for example. The results were usually devastating upon the individuals who suffered under these systems.

Although Britain, if we return to the ‘real’ timeline, did not take the path that most commentators of the early 20^th century expected it to being a disabled person in this country is not an easy existence. I know because I am disabled!

In many respects I have had it easy compared to other people, some of whom have been treated appallingly and still are sadly. From my formative years I was the subject of medical investigation because I have a very rare muscle condition; Becker’s variant Myotonia Congenita, which was first identified in the same year that I left school. My symptoms are severe and I suffer impaired mobility, which is pretty obvious to most observers.

Recently the current government waged a very effective propaganda war against the disabled prior to dismantling the benefit system that supports them. It was clearly a move to win over public sympathy from the cripples to the politicians and it worked. The government won hands down and the majority of society seem to have a so what attitude to the outcome.

This, I believe, was the starting point of the story that I wanted to write. Clearly life in Britain today is nowhere near as bad as it might have become if the country had fully embraced eugenics, there’s no suggestion of forced segregation and sterilisation for example, or state enacted euthanasia for that matter. Nevertheless I feel angry about the treatment that some disabled people have been subjected to, not just by politicians or the media or an apparently uncaring society but also by the medical fraternity. You might not believe some of the things done to me in the name of medical research?

They say that the best writers concentrate on the subjects that they know and I can see the logic in that. I am writing a book that, amongst others, examines the treatment of the disabled, admittedly in an extreme social setting, and I have an axe to grind, which is probably why I am writing angry, is this a good thing?

I think that it is. My reader expressed concerns that some people might find it a little uncomfortable, objectionable even, that it might stir things up. I understood what they meant but my immediate reaction was ‘so what?’ Eugenica has discrimination and prejudice as two of its core themes, they are thorny subjects. It also has dehumanisation to facilitate the war on the weak as a major theme, not a topic that you can deal with using kid gloves. There are some more positive themes in there as well but it is the ones just mentioned that are the tinder lit by my own personal experiences that in turn ignites my anger I suppose? I ask that question because here’s another observation, entirely subjective, I had not realised that I was writing angry!

I am now very curious to see what they other beta readers made of my early work on this project. I want to see if they come to a similar conclusion about the element of anger already suffused into the text. It is going to be interesting to see if they recognise it and if I am going to continue writing angry now that I have been made aware of something that I seemed to have been conducting unconsciously?

Today I will mostly be working on my manuscript

I set myself a deadline for publishing my book on Kindle and guess what? It's approaching at an alarming rate now!

No point whinging about it, if there was never a deadline there would never be any books published and what a horrible world htat would be!

So today has been set aside to peruse the suggestions from a good friend who is giving the manuscript yet another review, he's come up with some great ideas already. Nothing major, like the introduction of a whole new character, just some clever observations on how to improve various scenes or on moving some of the paragraphs around to create better hooks to catch the reader with.

If you can get someone you trust to do this sort of thing for you then it is definitely worth the effort, although a little bit earlier in the day would be better - but that's entirely my fault!!

Flippin’ ‘eck – that’s brilliant!!

I was talking my wife last night, something that we are prone to do over a glass of wine, and she pressed me on when is my book going to get published? It was a good question that has been frequently asked over the many, many months I have been working on it and, as on previous occasions, I had no definite answer.

We then discussed why I did not have a set date in mind. Now obviously it is impossible to set such a date when you do not have a publisher, never mind not having a literary agent, especially if you are trying to go down the traditional route of publishing.

As she pointed out, however, I had made another submission; why not set a date in consideration of that fact?

This was a good point, in my wine drinking estimation. I knew before hand that the odds are stacked against me when it comes to getting a sympathetic viewing from an agent. I made my submission on Sunday muttering to myself this ancient adage; hope for the best, expect the worst, and take what comes!

Glancing back at my pre-submission notes I confirmed that there was approximately a 6 week wait before I could expect to hear anything from the agent. 6 weeks would put me in the middle of July. That might be a good time to e-publish? However, we have a family holiday booked for August; I don’t want to be away after the launch because getting the word out each and every day is important if you want to succeed. Then my muse hit me with another brilliant idea; why not launch your book on the anniversary day of the battle it chronicles?

Flippin’ ‘eck – that’s brilliant!!

Tying the two in together would give me time to build up my social media network, iron out any manuscript problems, develop the website more, research e-publishing fully and be ready on the big day!

So, if my latest attempt to capture a literary agent alive and kicking does fail here’s my plan-b. This book is going to take its’ first steps into the big bad world one way or another, I mean, it’s not as if we write these things so that no one else gets to read them other than us is it?!

Submission Time!

While I am tending towards e-publishing there is still a part of me that wants to explore the traditional publishing route of contracting a literary agent and seeing my book in hard print. I have no doubt that writers already know how difficult this process is. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is the torture of submitting your work to a literary agent that fuels the current explosion in e-publishing. 

I started submitting my work in 2011 and I have not had one favourable response. In some cases I just did not get a response whatsoever, and in one particular instance an agent wrote a rather curt “no thanks” on my own covering letter and sent it back to me in the self addressed envelope that I had provided.

Also, there is the fact that no two agents seem to want the same thing in terms of what to submit. Some, but not all, want a covering letter, a biography, a synopsis, and the opening chapters. Well that doesn’t sound so bad! It would not be except that the format is not universal. My previous experience has shown me that some want the biographical detail in the covering letter, that the synopsis can range from 1 to 5 pages, that the chapters can be the first three or just 3000 words. Also, some agents want hard copy, along with the ubiquitous SEA, and some prefer e-mail submissions; some even accept both! Very few actually give any clear guidelines of what they actually want from the author as if it were some kind of test of comprehension on their part.

Do not get me wrong, I am not slating literary agents here, just making observations based on experience. I value the role of the literary agent or else I would not be going to the trouble this week of preparing yet another submission, it is just that the whole process is so lengthy and, in many instances, so lacking in response.

I know that agents get plenty of submissions every day, I am not the only person who thinks that they have written the best thing since the last big seller, it is all a question of perspective. For the literary agent mine is just one of a large number of submissions and treated accordingly. For me my submission is a labour of love.

Could agents make it easier for themselves and writers too? I think that they could. It would be great if there was a standard form for submissions to take. It would be encouraging to know exactly what to put in the covering letter, what facts to include in the biography, for the synopsis to be of a certain length and format (line spacing, font, etc.,), and, finally, exactly which chapters to submit; I find the arbitrary 3,000 words off-putting because my opening chapter is 5,000 long and it seems silly to submit it incomplete.

I wonder if the industry did adopt a universal submissions procedure whether or not this would make it easier for the literary agent because writers, that is genuine writers who work at their craft, hone their work, and believe in what they are doing, would be able to provide submissions that meet the criteria at the first attempt. Unfortunately this, to me sensible, situation does not exist. I will have to adapt my submission for each and every agent that I want to send it to and every time I make a change in line spacing or font or word count I will have to review it all again to make sure that I get it right, which just makes the whole process tortuous.

It’s a good job, I suppose, that I believe in my work and that I am happy to put myself through this to get into print, either that or I am a masochist and never knew it?!

Just My Imagination

It is funny how the act of writing is the same as creating a new fantasy world. I used to do that as a child, create my own worlds peopled by fantastic characters from pop culture and the books I read, and dinosaurs! Always dinosaurs!

Having decided to write the book and then immersed myself in learning something of the world of the Anglo-Saxons I found myself living in an alternative reality on occasion. I take this as a positive sign that I was establishing a degree of empathy for my subject matter, not just that but for the characters as well. There were two distinct forms of characters; historical and fictional. Of the two I found the historical to be the hardest to write about, for obvious reasons I think; they were real living people!

The gap of almost 1,000 years made penetrating the psyche of those people a little difficult, although others before me had made an attempt by writing biographies or fictional stories about them. I could have dipped into these works but there was a little voice inside my head saying “whoa there!”

For awhile I left the historical characters as names only and concentrated on the fictional heroes. This was much more fun! I had a basic manuscript to work with, the first (very rough) draft and from this I plucked those characters that I thought could be developed further. I tried to write biographies on them but to be honest this just did not work for me even though I know it does for other writers. Nope, for me it was using my imagination. They all came alive inside my head. I must have a good imagination because I did not find this part very taxing and I found that the more I thought of each character the more they seemed to define each other.

Back to the historical chaps. I realised now that there was a problem in so far as if I applied a strict interpretation of other people’s analyses of people like King Harold of England then I risked the historical jarring with the fictional. In fact I have read a book or two where this very thing seemed to happen. To avoid this hurdle I decided to read general rather than specific accounts of each character and then rewrite the biographies in my head alongside the fictional characters. I encouraged my imagination to let the two interact and define each other.

I found that the benefit of this system is that both sets of characters took on the same flavour of imaginative creation. King Harold seemed to me to fit seamlessly in with my main protagonist Coenred. I think that is because I used to the fictional characters first to define and shape my imaginative interpretation of Anglo-Saxon England and then repeated the procedure on the historical characters so that they could fit into the background that I had created and not appear as if they had been simply inserted to add some historical authenticity.

Now I can perceive a problem with this and I think it is one that purists may be the first to complain about; the accuracy with which I have represented historical personages! An expert on 1066 might just not agree with my interpretation of any of the historical characters. I understand that and I accept it. In my defence I would claim the Bernard Cornwell principle; I fitted what facts I had about these people to suit my story.

Is this a literary crime? I do not think so. The point is that no one knows exactly what these people from a millennia back in time actually thought, planned, believed, felt, feared or dreamt of to the degree that we know of people more contemporary. These are the bits of the psychology that the writer has to fill in; it is also part of the fun of writing historical fiction!