Thank God for the second interval (it gave me a chance to walk out)

Tedious, vacuous and dull.

I’ve thought long and hard about posting this review. It goes against the grain of pretty much every other review I’ve read and I fear I may come across as somehow snarky. But having paid £50 plus a booking fee for my ticket, why not tell it how I saw it?

I went to the Apollo on Friday night expecting something amazing. Jerusalem is the play by Jez Butterworth which has sold out and had rave reviews on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s back here for a second run and I was lucky, or so I thought, to get pretty much the last two seats together in any of the remaining performances. I didn’t know too much about the play, but knew it was going to be a wonderful tale of our times, a sort of Withnail and I for the modern day.

And so it was. For about three minutes. Yep, that was a great opening scene. Then the main character, played by Mark Rylance, opened his mouth.

Thereafter I sat, open mouthed myself, stunned by the draw-dropping vacuousness of this play. Rylance’s much heralded performance was overblown and self-conscious. I hear he’s a fine actor but puffing out his chest, popping his eyes as wide as he could and jiggling his leg became extraordinarily irritating. His self-serving ramblings were worthy of the sort of local pisshead you’d cross the road to avoid. All the characters were two-dimensional and without pathos, the jokes were witless and feeble, the plot a nothing thing. Each scene was painfully contrived and I cringed at the attempt at poignancy, the scene where the inept father tries to connect with his child.

The play was full of symbolism about this ‘green and pleasant land’, but that’s not good writing, that’s trainspotting. About half way through the second part of three – yes, the writer gives us three odd hours of this drivel, with two intervals, the indulgence!  - I actually visualised an indulgence of my own: me getting out of my seat, walking down the side of the theatre, up onto the stage and shouting to the audience: “If I wanted to listen to this utter mind-numbingly tedious trumped up nonsense, I could have saved myself fifty quid, gone to my local pub and listened to the pissheads there for free!” If I’d used the C-word I probably would have got a laugh since its every use caused the audience to snigger or even laugh uproariously, irrespective of context.

So, that’s my take on what’s meant to be the biggest stage event of recent years. I put up with it for over two hours before walking out.  It seems my views are those of a tiny minority and that, in itself, is disconcerting. I’ve spent a good couple of days thinking there’s something wrong with me! But no matter which way I look at it, these are the only conclusions I can draw. I hardly ever go to the theatre so when I do it’s to be entertained.

Posted in Rabbiting around | Leave a comment

Landowners, tenants and peasants

I often hear this sort of thing from writers: ‘A good agent will do any editing that needs to be done.’ ‘Agents should edit your work for you until it’s ready to submit.’ ‘Never pay for editorial advice.’

It’s become the norm, but isn’t that expecting quite a lot from agents?

Writers: the peasants of the publishing world

It used to be that an agent’s job was to sell a client’s work. While they might have done some preparation to present the manuscript to the publisher, their focus was to find the right publisher, negotiate contracts and look after the writer’s interests. The next stage, where the work was edited in detail, was done by editors in publishing houses.

But in the bean-counting, cost-saving age, over a fairly short period of time, publishers decided to abdicate responsibility for this critical part of producing a good book. And in cutting out editors, they cut out the heart of the book making process, letting the other organs do all the hard work. Strangely, their editors stopped editing and this time consuming and less visible part of bookmaking was thrust into the lap of the agents.

But the skills required to edit a book don’t particularly go hand in hand with those required to find the right publisher and negotiate contracts. There are many capable people in the agenting world who manage to do both but in reality they are doing two distinct jobs – traditional agenting, and the role that was previously done by editors at publishing houses.

In all of this, one thing is clear: while the ‘editors’ at publishers have decreased their workload and creative input to their titles, they haven’t taken a cut in their share of the profits. And while the workload on agents has increased, their share is no bigger. It’s still only 15%.

Let’s think about the economics for a moment: say a publisher pays a £40,000 advance for two books. If you were just starting out and got that much, these days, you’d think you were doing all right. Leaving royalties and foreign sales out of it, the agent will receive 15% of this which is £6,000. The payment is broken down with chunks received on signature, on delivery, on publication of the hardback, on publication of the paperback and so on. With a two book deal this could take between 12 and 36 months or more to come in. As the agent, in spite of all the time you’ve spent editing, you could be looking at an income of less than £2,000 a year from this author. And what if the advance is only £5,000?

Of course, this is simplistic. If an author is successful, everybody stands to do very well over time. All three parties – the author, the agent and the publisher – are speculating to different degrees. But the publisher’s investment is creamed off the top of any revenue received before the profit is shared out. The author and agents’ return for their investment always takes second place.

So what I’m wondering is whether, for 15%, it makes sense for an agent to enter into the vital but time-consuming process of editing. And if they do, shouldn’t they get more for their investment?

To cover time they have to now spend editing, I’ve heard agents suggest they should put up their percentage. But this would mean the writer loses out when already they’re the small guy in all of this, no matter that they’re the originator and spend a year or so at their desk putting 100% of themselves into writing a book. So if it’s not the writer who gets less, that leaves the publisher. And since they’re putting in less work why should they continue to claim the same share?

It’s not a business model that all three parties would agree to if they were starting from scratch. But of course publishing is a feudal business, where publishers are the landowners, the agents the tenant farmers and the author the peasant in the field.

Posted in Publishing | Leave a comment

Discovering new (old) authors

There must be lots of authors I’ve ‘missed’. Bestsellers are probably bestsellers for a reason, but preconceptions arise, you file them away in the ‘to be read at some point’ part of your brain, there’s always something else to be read.

John Le Carré first came onto my radar in the ’70s, when the BBC did an adaptation of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy with Alec Guinness. I was too young to appreciate it, but I remember my parents were enthralled. Since that time his presence has slowly been building in my consciousness, in the form of battered Pan Books on my parents’ bookshelves and further adaptations of his work on film and TV. I used to stay up in Scotland and he had rented the cottage on the estate to finish a novel. My partner had met him a few times through work. He caught my attention when he quietly announced his withdrawal from the Man Booker prize, for which he was nominated this year.

More recently, a friend told me about an independent library in Cornwall that had had its funding withdrawn. When I looked it up, I saw he had been a previous chairman. Then the crunch point came when a colleague from work said they’d read one of his books on holiday, and how much she’d been drawn to the character of Leamas.

It was that word ‘character’ that did it for me. Until then, I’d had this idea that John Le Carré was ‘just’ a political thriller writer, a good one, but did I really want to read ‘cold war’ novels? When I started to read The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, I realised what I’d been missing all these years. Leamas is indeed a compelling character – edgy and dark. The prose is spare and powerful. It’s so much deeper than I imagined. Preconceptions be damned. I hope I’ll never again dismiss an author till I’ve read him on the page. What a complete joy it is to discover an author like this, especially one with a great raft of work behind him which will keep me busy for a long time to come.

Posted in Reading | Leave a comment

We get giddy… at Priddy

Gertie and Olive blowing bubbles at Priddy Folk Festival, Somerset.

 

Posted in Rabbiting around | Leave a comment

“Just… leave me alone!”

George Orwell said all writers are selfish

I was in a writing class a few years ago when, as an aside, the tutor suggested that writers are selfish. Gasps of indignation rose from the eclectic mix of people sitting in a circle around the room. How could we be selfish when we went out to work every day to put food in our babes’ mouths? When we helped 96 year old Vivien down the street with her shopping? When we cooked dinner for our family and friends? When we donated to charity, manned the Christmas fair stall? When we volunteered? Fought for our country?

In his 1947 essay Why I Write, Orwell said: “All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery.”

Do you subscribe to that view? Obviously the writers of Murder, She Wrote didn’t. Jessica Fletcher single-handedly purges Cabot Cove and, well, anywhere she goes, of dastardly murderers and I can’t count the number of times she’s got up from her typewriter to help out an acquaintance. You can’t get much more public spirited than that, yet she does it at the same time as being a bestselling author.

I know I’m capable of monumental selfishness. Not the ‘But that’s enough about me. Now let’s talk about what you think about me’ importance of the self, but of wanting to be able to do what I want without reference to others. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t have let the kids’ supper burn on, ooh, countless occasions while I’ve been tapping away on my computer. Their scrapping skills are getting pretty sharp as, so keen am I to get to the end of a paragraph, I refuse to intervene in their tiffs. In fact, I can quite happily close myself off from everyone and everything in my typing room, and leave my home to descend into turmoil behind me.

But sometimes I think my selfishness needs more work. For example, when my brain’s become mental mush from the daily trudge and I’m too tired to form a coherent sentence. When real work has dampened out even the remotest flicker of creativity. It’s then that I wonder how anyone can finish a novel without being selfish.

Some people might argue that the urge to write is so strong, it has nothing to do with selfishness. For myself, I write as an indulgence. It’s something I want to do, and it’s my time for me. If only I could stop it spilling over into the part of my life when I’m meant to be being attentive to other people’s needs.

Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

Whose fault is it you’re not getting published?

Picture it: the agent’s office, with a wall of books and a comfy sofa for clients. Paperwork is piled up on his desk. The agent has a million and one things to do today, including dealing with a renegade author with a deadline, lunch with an editor, marking up so-and-so’s book two (it hasn’t turned out quite as good as he’d hoped, damn it), emails to subagents in distant countries and, god forbid, his tax return.

First, though, there is the slush pile to deal with. Even though he wants new authors, he’s been putting it off but when the stack of manuscripts is so high it’s hiding the photo of his dear old mum on the wall, he knows it’s time. He picks the first manuscript and opens it. The query letter gets the once over, he puts the synopsis to one side and reads the first line of chapter one. His eye brows raise slightly. With the next sentence, the hairs stand up on the back of his neck. By the third sentence, he’s sitting forward, on the edge of his chair, and doesn’t blink even once before reaching the end of the paragraph. He looks briefly at the pile of manuscripts on his desk, then pushes them to one side so he can spread out the one he’s reading. He swiftly turns over the first page and starts on the second. A glance at his watch – he’s got a phone call to make, but wants to get through the slush pile before he starts his working day proper. Half an hour later, though, he’s still reading the manuscript. Heart in mouth, he gets to the end of the extract, reaches for his polite, but terse, form rejection, puts the author’s name at the top, and signs it off…

No. This does not happen. Agents and publishers are hungry for good, new material. The reason they send out form rejections to the vast majority of submissions is not because, as a collective, they have fulfilled their quota (think how many publishers/imprints and agents there are) or because they don’t want good stuff (good stuff makes money!) It’s because those submissions are simply not good enough.

At the risk of sounding school ma’am-ish (I’m good with a 30cm ruler), I reckon that rather than make the agent or publisher your scapegoat for not getting published, work hard, learn, practise and concentrate on making your manuscript as good as it can possibly be before sending it off. It sounds obvious, but it’s surprising how many people burden the agent’s desk without doing this.

This post is not aimed at everyone who’s ever been rejected. It’s aimed at those who have submitted without rigorously preparing their manuscript, and then blame and complain when it’s not taken on.

Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

Books that change the way you think #1

When I parked in my road after returning from an idyllic camping trip with the children, yesterday, I noticed something odd about the 4×4 Jeep in front of me. Looking closely, I saw that a yellow and black sticker, contrived to look like a number plate, covered the real digits and letters beneath. Now the number plate read: CO2 KILL5. I live in a part of London where stick thin women who look like they barely have the strength to turn the wheel drive Little Johnny to school in several tons of steel 4×4, so I have to admit I smirked. And with a knowing shake of my head, it took me back several years to when I volunteered for a certain ‘green’ organisation.

I used to go into the office once a week and remember the looks of horror when, one day, I walked in with a plastic bag containing my lunch because that’s how it had been handed over to me in the sandwich shop. I quickly learned how to get the photocopying machine to print double sided, and even remembered not to flush the loo every time. I’m not saying they didn’t do good work there, but it was odd. People would come back from holidays sporting tans, but no one dared admit increasing their carbon footprint several thousand times by flying, or if they did, it was justified at length by the ‘eco tourism’ they did at the other end. The strange hypocrisy was further borne out by a ludicrously chilled out attitude, but in an arena where the office politics were rife and the hoops you had to jump through to get anything done worse than anywhere I’ve ever worked.

It always amazed me how everything was so black and white. The film An Inconvenient Truth was doing the rounds, and Al Gore had been elevated to a God-like hero figure. Red Ken was a superstar for increasing the congestion zone in London, and Boris was a fiend-from-hell for wanting to reduce it.

It was while I was in the midst of this that Sarah Hall’s The Carhullan Army was published. The book is set in a future world where oil has run out and climate change is playing havoc. The Thames has burst its banks, flooding Westminster, and the country is run by a nebulous dictatorship.

“Even the rain is different now; erratic, violent, not the constant grey drizzle of old postcards, jokes, and television reports. It’s rain that feels wounded.”

The book got me thinking. How brilliant of Hall to imagine the future like this, how elegant to evoke it, and how powerful to wrap it up in a compelling story set in the Cumbrian fells.

While there is a place for marching and activism and scaremongering, awareness can be built in different, subtler ways. There is a strong tradition of fiction writers imagining dystopian futures – Orwell’s 1984, Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, to name a few classics – and readingThe Carhullan Army I was reminded of this.

I left the organisation shortly afterwards. I care about the planet, but I’m not ‘right on’ and I never was very good at activism. I realised I could get on with being ‘green’ in my own quiet way.

Posted in Reading | Leave a comment

Rabbiting around

Never one to miss jumping on the bandwagon, I’ve decided to set up this blog. It’ll probably be a lot to do with reading and writing, and a bit to do with editing. There might be other things too.

Posted in Rabbiting around | Leave a comment