So I was going to start by answering all those emails requesting details of what I am working on at the moment, but then, upon realising that I had in fact received no emails requesting details of what I am working on at the moment, I figured the point was null and void.
But I'm joking with you. Of course I'm working on something. Actually it is something that I have lots of positive vibes about, I don't mind saying. What I like about it is my approach to it, and how much freedom I have with it. With my other stories there is a formula, a rider list of essential ingedients. The mark must hits all the points along the route if the end destination is to make any sense. By that I mean plot points, those little subliminal markers where you know the beats of the plot. The whole beginning middle and end thing that everyone harps on about doesn't exist for me. I know how the story MUST end - which is quite helpful when creating an interlocking ongoing series - and that is what fuels me on. I have this little GPS machine in my head. All the stuff in-between the markers, that's the A to B, the patter, the character's voices and intentions, bread and butter stuff. It's the markers that they are leading up to.
The second Cornelius Quaint book handles the marker points exceptionally well. And for me it was a case of moving things along the road, and hitting each mark on cue. You'll see it once the finished product is out in March 2010. It's much more of a story, more of an adventure, as just as there are cues and marks to hit in the series, there were far more to hit when traipsing around fogbound Victorian London. As I've said in an interview recently, in order to sell Victorian London you need to reference key aspects of what is typically 'Victorian'. I'm not a history writer, I'm a storyteller, and sometimes there are barriers that your very own story has presented you with. It's like the story is struggling with you, tugging at you so that you've got no choice to amend what you've done, or work the story around it. I can't tell you how many characters I have killed off early in a book only to realise that they are actually pretty crucial to the tale - or the one succeeding it. And so I keep them, stow them away and let them boil a bit longer. What I am working on now has no plotpoints to hit, no cues or markers. It is simply a good old fashioned story of good against evil and then good betrays good so that he can eventually defeat evil all over again...you know the type. And let's me tell you, the knowledge that in this story, anything can happen and I am in control (not the story).
I want you to take a look at these two pictures. You recognise him of course.
It’s Tom Bosley, better known as Mr Cunningham in Happy Days, and Father Dowling in the Father Dowling Mysteries.
But look again and you might be startled to know that this is in fact not solely Tom Bosley, for the picture on the left is actually that of actor David Doyle.
They look remarkably similar to me, and this is something that has become a bit of a myth to me.
I can’t actually recall if I figured this out all on my lonesome, or if I had help from one of my mates years ago, but here’s the deal.
David Doyle is perhaps best known for his role in the Charlie’s Angels TV show. Now wait, if you’ve never noticed this before you’d better sit down (of course, seeing as this is the net, no doubt you’re already sat down as only 3% of the Earth’s population access the internet whilst standing up).
David Doyle’s character in Charlie's Angles was called Bosley and yet David Doyle looks remarkably similar to Tom Bosley. So, Bosley the character looks just like Bosley the real life person.
Do you have any idea how much that screwed with my mind as a youth? How could a fictional character called Bosley be played by an actor who bore an uncanny resemblance to a real person who was called Bosley?
Someone talk me through that.
And once you’re done, explain this group of brothers…
I thought considering today is a Thursday, why don't we set ourselves up nicely for the weekend with a change of scene. Today we have company, and it’s someone special. Perhaps someone that you might not be familiar with, or perhaps someone that you have experienced yourself, but even if you answered yes to both, I know that you will find her answers fascinating.
The incomparable Caroline Smailes has dropped by Quaint Manor and agreed to do an interview for your reading pleasure. Trust me, guys – this is a BIG deal, I kid you not. I’m trying to think of an analogy here to put this into perspective, but all I can think of is that it’s kind of like Goliath agreeing to do an interview for David. No, wait…that doesn’t work considering how things panned out for Goliath. Okay, how about this – it’s kind of like Michael Jordan agreeing to an interview with Troy Bolton. No, wait….oh, to hell with it. Here it is. She’s very good. Go buy her books.
Q1. Caroline, thank you for agreeing to this interview. As a precursor, how would you describe your books?
Eek, a difficult one! I guess my stories are personal journeys, not my own but rather those of my characters. They’re comments on society, on human weakness, on grief, on loss, on insecurity, on parental love, on topics that others shy away from. My books are about societies where bad things happen and human beings often initially fail to cope, but mainly I seem to write books that cause reaction (be it positive or negative).
Q2. I think you are one of those authors that people will want to go out and buy ‘the next Caroline Smailes book’ because your voice is original and uncompromising…but the question is; what kind of author do YOU think you are?
(Thank you, that’s a really lovely thing to say!). I see myself as a very selfish writer. Though I cherish my readers, I really find it hard to believe that people actually buy my books. Just last week I phoned up the (lovely patient) royalty lady at HarperCollins to check my royalty statement, because I thought they’d made a mistake. I do think that this comes in handy when I write, because I block out any thoughts of anyone ever reading my words. That way, I can write whatever I want and then worry about who might read/hate me/be shocked/love me when I really really have to. I worry that any writer who tries to write to please their readers is doomed to failure and uncertainty. So I write what I feel and what I need to write, then sit with fingers crossed that my agent, publisher and, most importantly, my readers will like my work. So, you see, selfish!
Q3. Are you a slave to an idea, or do you make it work for you? Or a bit of both?
My books always start out with characters and with me having absolutely no idea about the plot. It’s all about voice to start with, then character development and then finally plot and themes. Sometimes (and I possibly shouldn’t be saying this, but…) it’s not until I’ve completed the first or second draft of the story that deeper themes or ideas begin to shine through.
Q4. One of the most original aspects of your work is the changing fonts, sizes, the juxtaposition of particular words or repeating phrases, and the whole ‘package’ of the book as if each aspect is part of an orchestra. Reading your work is a true reading experience, with different parts of your brain being called into action as you read. How much of that grew out of the genesis of the idea, and how much is purely the way you utilise words?
I’ve always been fascinated by linguistics, it was the basis for my PhD study and I used to lecture in it. With In Search of Adam and with Black Boxes, I felt that the straight written word wasn’t enough so the altered font choices and the white space provided additional shape and texture to the words.
My novels have been a development of the idea that a writer can extend their work into another area that lies between the written word and the brain (and I am aware that that sounds highly pretentious!). In my first 2 novels, I experimented with the visual text and the presentation of sound. I needed the way that the fonts looked to carry meaning that added to the words and to the context. This meant that the voice of a young girl (Jude in In Search of Adam) could be given additional texture and life through varying font size and layout. This is an ongoing process, but in novel 3 (Like Bees to Honey) I use my fonts to signal altered voice and translation and in novel 4 no altered fonts are used at all, instead the experimental elements are hidden within the words (it’s all very clever sounding!). I guess that if a reader chose to read my books in order, then they’d see just how my ideas develop and morph.
Q5. One of the things that I have said about ‘In Search of Adam’ is that when I was reading it, I felt as if I was being told a secret by the characters that no one else knew, and it is the same with ‘Black Boxes’. I really want to dive into the pages and save them. They are truly ‘speaking’ to the reader. Can I ask how the evolution of those characters came about?
Sometimes it feels like the characters write themselves. I see the images in my head and then write the scene out. It’s hard to explain without sounding insane, but my characters exist and feel real before they’re developed on paper. I often write out of order and may start a novel with a scene that ends up being near the end of the book. It’s as if I write a series of independent clips and then I join them all together. As I write the characters tend to evolve, they react to scenes and events, showing me their deeper character traits. I know this sounds clichéd but it’s genuinely the case, so for you to say that you want to 'save' them, well that’s a true compliment because I try really really hard not to make my characters rubbish.
Q6. Whilst my ideas and characters are drawn from a love of escapism, yours are skilful dissections of a human condition that the characters would no doubt wish to escape from. What draws you to write stories about such heartfelt issues?
Though I write about fictional characters in fictional situations, I’m drawn to reflecting authentic human emotion and behaviour. I guess this stems from a personal need for my writing to say ‘something’ and to be about ‘something’ beyond the visual impact. I often find writing a draining experience. Sometimes, I have to sink into disturbing worlds when my thoughts become the same as my characters, this can mean thinking like a victim of sexual abuse, a suicidal woman or even a child molester. I guess this shows just how much I’m drawn by a need to speak out.
Q7. Can you describe your journey prior to being published?
Back in September 2005, I was trying to be an academic. I’d returned to PhD study after the births of my three children and was all set to devote my life to linguistics. The problem was that deep down I knew that it wasn’t making me happy. I was writing in secret, whenever I could and had a character called Jude who desperately wanted to be developed. Then I watched a repeat of a Richard and Judy show, where they referred to someone as a ‘Nearly Woman’, saying she nearly did things but never quite finished them and something inside of me freaked out. I emailed my colleague and ranted about how I was a ‘Nearly Woman’ and how my PhD wasn’t what I wanted to do. Over the course of the email exchanges I decided that if I didn’t try to see if I could write a novel, then I’d spend the rest of my life wondering if I could and ‘nearly’ doing things that I really didn’t want to do.
Now when I think of the rest of the story it feels unbelievable and too spontaneous for me! Within two weeks of that Richard and Judy show I’d given up my PhD and enrolled on an MA in Creative Writing. I continued to write my novel and finished it within a year. I then started blogging and had a very basic website designed, showcasing the characters and an extract from my novel. Three weeks after launching that blog and website I was discovered by a cyber-scouting publisher who requested my full manuscript, a few days later I had a publishing contract and In Search of Adam was published nine months later in June 2007.
Q8. Can you describe a typical writing day?
I’m lucky to have 2 or 3 writing days every week. My typical day starts at 8am, when my children leave for school, and I’m to be found at my desk with a huge mug of tea (always the same mug). I then write, check Twitter, check emails, write, drink more tea, walk Oscar the puppy, write, drink more tea and rarely speak out loud. I aim for over 3000 words when writing and plod through chapters when redrafting. I stay at my desk until my children come home from school and I always leave a writing session knowing what I’m going to write the next day.
Q9. Which other writers have most influenced you?
Simple - Jeanette Winterson, Roald Dahl, Margaret Atwood and Angela Carter.
Q10. Can you offer any advice for people wanting to be published?
Never ever give up!
Q11. What are you working on at the moment?
I’m waiting to start the edits and production of my 3rd novel, Like Bees to Honey which is due to be published in May 2010 and I’m on the second draft of my 4th and most experimental novel yet, 99 Reasons Why, which is due to be published spring 2011. I’ve also got a top secret digital project to start and the thought of just how complicated it’s going to be to write is both exciting and terrifying, at the same time.
Q12. And finally…what is the best line/s that you have ever written?
“Attached In Search Of Adam. I look forward to hearing from you. Happy reading, Caroline.”
And there we are, folks. See? Told you it would be special. Caroline can be found blogging at this address:
James Bond. Mr Darcy. Doctor Who - Taking on a role that is has been so unforgettably defined by another actor must be a daunting and double-edged task, and taking on a role that is iconic, and revered by an army of fans must only add to the pressure. Daniel Craig was famously slammed by certain sectors of the internet, and one individual even went so far as to create a website ladled of criticisms against Craig a long, long, long time before Casino Royale was released. The site’s originator was allegedly a hardcore James Bond fan that was unhappy with Craig’s casting, and the internet provided him with a voice-box. He was proved wrong, of course – spectacularly embarrassingly so, I might add. Casino Royale was a massive hit both with fans and critics alike but even more importantly, Daniel Craig was an exceptional 007, breathing new life into what was an admittedly stale franchise and even staler character – and the fans loved him. The real fans, that is. Not some lonely soul in his attic with a laptop venting his fury for the world to read.
But Bond had been coasting on his own fumes for years. What Pierce Brosnan did prior to Craig was great, and of the four films he did, every one of them is able to stand shoulder to shoulder with the 007 canon (even Die Another Day with all its dodgy CGI, dodgy Madonna, and dodgyAston Martin Vanquish has a spectacular opening sequence that has the most sustained volume than any other film I have seen). But Brosnan was re-treading old ground, going through the motions without breaking a sweat. An actor that had reinvigorated the Bond franchise after it had languished in limbo for years was suddenly not the man for the job anymore, and rumours abound whether Brosnan was pushed, or if he walked. His loss was an indicator that Hollywood’s movie moguls realised they were running out of ideas. And so what did they do? They started again at the beginning. Hollywood has got a thing for remakes these days (some good, some bad) and even more of a thing for a reboot – a term that could only have originated in a world run by Microsoft. A reboot solves everything –just wipe the slate clean, forget about whatever you had, get over it. A reboot is a gentle way of saying: “Our franchise is past its sell-by date.”
‘Batman Begins’ kick-started the whole thing off by taking Bruce Wayne/Batman back to his roots, yet at the same time reinventing him to be 'current' – and it did it well, not only breathing new life into the character, but single-handedly erasing all the celluloid misdemeanors of ‘Batman and Robin’ – which effectively killed the Batman movie franchise dead in its tracks. So when Craig was given the role of James Bond, he wasn’t just taking on an acting job – he held the future of the 007 franchise in his hands. Christian Bale was lucky – it probably never even occurred to him that Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney were hard acts to follow. With the exception of Keaton (who for my money was great, just never given enough to do Bat-wise), I think Bale would have been right to think that. But think about poor old Daniel Craig. He had the likes of Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Lazenby to contend with. Hard acts to follow all three of them. Now add to that the expectation of millions of 007 fans who know what they want, then no matter how focused Mr Craig is, he must have felt the trepidation of taking over the reins of something that is so well-loved, so well-established, so steeped in millions of fans’ consciousness.
Which brings me to my point nicely.
Next month sees the release of ‘And Another Thing’, part six of The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy trilogy. The Hitchhiker’s series was written by the late, great Douglas Adams. It was a 1978 radio series, the trilogy of books began in 1979, then a 1981 TV show, and it was also given the Hollywood treatment in the 2005 movie (still undecided about that one). The books have been released, re-released, re-packaged and released, re-packaged, re-released with new covers or forewords so many times since their original release and this is purely because they are bloody good, and people love them. I mean really love, as in care for deeply as if they are a lifelong friend kind of love. I have 3 copies of The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy (don’t ask) and all of them have different covers. I’m not going to harp on about the genius of the books, or how they are among the most imaginative books that I have ever read. Far more loquacious folk than I have done and will do so - No, what I wanted to say (always a bonus when writing a blog) is that a certain author by the name of Eoin Colfer is no doubt going through all the turmoil suffered by the likes of Messrs Craig and Bale, yet bigger.
Universally so.
Eoin Colfer is the mega-selling author of the brilliant Artemis Fowl series. He's a fantastically funny, creative genius (in my opinion) and I have enjoyed every single one of his books. Not just the creator of six Artemis Fowl series, Colfer also penned The Supernaturalist, The Wish List, Half Moon Investigations, Airman and many more fantastic books enjoyed by children and adults alike. He’s successful because he’s good at what he does. He gets it. He knows how to tell a story. And he’s funny. I saw him perform his one man show/ talk/ gig whatever you want to call it, a couple of years ago and it was quite apparent that the genial Irishman has ‘funny’ all through him. But funny does not make a Hitchhiker’s book, you say, and yes, that has to be said. The HHGTTG (or whatever the acronym is) books are more than just funny, they are inspirationally imaginative, pastiches, statements about humanity, sardonic, social commentaries and so much more besides. The good news is that Colfer is a self-confessed Adams fan, and has been since his teenage years. The books have influenced him on so many levels, and there have been Adams-esque moments of imaginative brilliance peppered throughout every one of his books. In short, if you are a Hitchhiker’s fan and don’t know Eoin (pronounced 'Owen' by the way) Colfer’s work, then firstly shame upon you, and secondly – Don’t Panic! I can’t think of anyone else in the galaxy that could pull off writing another Hitchhiker’s book other than him. Plus, Colfer has the stamp of approval from Jane Belson (Adams’s widow). He is quoted as saying that if Ms Belson had not liked the book, he would not have allowed it to see print. She did, and so it has.
And so with the release of ‘And Another Thing’ we don’t have a remake, or a reboot, or even a re-casting…we simply have a torch being passed from one great author to another, and I for one am certain that Arthur and co are in the best of hands. And what is more interesting is the crossover appeal from an author who already has a massive following in one genre, now embarking on a new venture into uncharted territory. Douglas Adams fans will be introduced to Eoin Colfer, and Eoin Colfer fans will be introduced to Douglas Adams and the world will unite in one big happy family, seeing an end to injustice and tyranny – or it might just put a lot of smiles on people’s face.
Anyways, a longer blog this time, so thanks for sticking with me.
An odd thing is happening. As the author of the Cornelius Quaint series, I didn't have a set number in my head how many stories I might produce. I've got loads to tell, but at the same time I wanted to move on, and push some of my other books out there. When I came to write the 4th Cornelius Quaint book, The Romulus Equation, in my mind I was on a precipice - the book would either just be an end to the particular arc that began in The Equivoque Principle and then I am free to move on and do some more radical CQ adventures, or it would be an end full-stop.
Although the 1st book is the only one that has my name on it in the shops at the moment, the sequel The Eleventh Plague will be out in March of next year. The cover is all finished, my first draft is completed, and the copy-editor has finished her work on what will now become the 'final edit'.
But a lot has happened in my mind since I typed that last full-stop at the end of Romulus. It is left with an open door to either kill it dead or carry on until I am old and grey(er). That gives me a lot of freedom, and of course only having one book out so far has not automatically made me rich and famous. That's not me being bitter. I never intended to be rich and famous. Well-read and well-liked, yes. And if riches and fame came along with that, then all the better. But I did not set out to be JKRowling in it.....(bad pun intended). For all I know, when The Eleventh Plague is released it might fall flat on its arse and kill off any chance I have of doing this writer thing full-time. Or it might not. It might be just another step closer to what I want. Or I might have to wait until the 3rd book, The Lazarus Curse is released. Lots of 'or's' in there, but that only equates to lots of 'what if's' if you're possessed of an optimistic mind as I am.
So this morning, I began work on a 5th Cornelius Quaint book. And the problem is that I know exactly what to do with it. I know the characters, the villains, their motivations, and I know Quaint. I even know the title - The Sovereign Key - I know when it is set, and I have a vague idea of some of the stuff that I can get up to. More of the same, but more.
But hang on a minute, did I say problem? Over the past few years of me writing Quaint stories I have a whole ton of material that I've not had chance to use, or I have used it and discarded it as it didn't fit. Scenes that I cut out in favour of others, sequences that were great but just didnt fit, and bits and bobs of other stuff that would only have got in the way before. It's a Frankenstein way to write, but all the ideas are mine and mine only, so why should any go to waste? In both Lazarus and Romulus there is a subplot that was purposely laid so that I could pick up on it when I needed to. A knot at the end of my handkerchief.So why would that be a problem? Well, it is a problem because as I say, I'd intended to leave Quaint alone for a bit and let the dust settle so that I could pursue other ideas and projects. I must have another 2 or 3 complete novels in various stages of development - most complete. For about 3 months I have dusted off an old idea and reshaped it into a really exciting and potentially fantastic trilogy - but now I am being side-tracked to write another Quaint story. It's like I don't have much of a choice in the matter. I'm just going along with the flow. Now, that is definitely not a Frankenstein way to write and I think that it might just be the way that I write. If I were to examine myself (in a purely literary sense, of course) I might be quite intrigued by the fact that it is the idea/notion/plan/dream that I am letting guide me, and nothing more than wanting to be creative that drives me. With such a pure of heart intention such as that, surely I deserve to be rich and famous, right?
And so there it is, the big skinny or whatever they call it.
Just to inform you that there is an interview with yours truly today on the sparklingly talented Caroline Smailes's website. Do please pop over and say Hi, and even a chance to win one of 3 limited editions of The Equivoque Principle. And whilst you are there, stay awhile and have a look. For me I feel a bit like a fraud being interviewed by someone that I hold in such high regard, for whereas I am merely a writer....Caroline is an author. I write larger than life action, humour and adventure but she writes life that is smaller, more personal, and scrutinized with a lethal eye, all told with a far more intimate voice that I could ever dream of emulating. She could wipe the floor with me - in a purely literary sense, you understand.
For those who are not familiar with Caroline's work, shame on you. 'In Search Of Adam' was one of those books that I read that stuck with me long afterwards. The innocent and haunting words are so wonderfully arranged, and the sheer force of will of Caroline's writing comes through on every page. I have never read a narrative voice quite like it. When I held the book in my hands after reading just the first few chapters, feeling the intensity of the story, I felt as if I was in charge of a secret that only I knew.
Do something nice for your cerebellum today, introduce it to this, and Caroline's subsequent novels Black Boxes and Disraeli Avenue (which is available to download for FREE my friends and well worth every non-penny you don't even have to spend!). And there is more to come from Caroline next year, so add her to your favourites this instant!
Continuing on from the point below, you might ask 'Why set your novel in the Victorian era if it's going to cause you so many headaches validating if it's all possible?' and the answer is that I didn't intentionally choose that era to set Cornelius Quaint's chronicles in, it just sort of happened.
I've tried many times in the past to sit down with a blank screen or a notebook, and conjure up (no pun intended) interesting stories, scenarios and characters. Mostly, it doesn't happen. Why? Because I'm trying too hard.
The night I created Cornelius Quaint and the circus folk, I didn't consciously choose to do so. It began with a vague thought about the old Victorian freak shows, and I wondered how much mileage would be in a story like that - especially because the very idea of them doesn't sit well in my mind. Gradually, the ideas morphed themselves into a bigger idea, and that idea then gave itself a bit more form and substance in the cold light of day. I still have the very first synopsis that I wrote for The Equivoque Principle way back in 2005 or so, and it's interesting for me to look back at that now with 4 books (in various stages of completion) under my belt, and wonder how I came to make all those choices and decisions. Some aspects of that germ of an idea are still there. Some obvious and up front, others just below the surface. The inflection of someone's speech, a particular action sequence or conversation...but why did I consciously (or unconsciously) decide to follow through certain ideas, but drop others? Why did I change the whole direction of the story overnight? The boisterous conjuror, the bearded lady, the wolf boy and the grisly strongman from that very first synopsis still exist somewhere down the line and even individual lines of dialogue that I wrote four years ago are still recycled and used at some point.
I have a notebook where I have plotted out the whole of the Cornelius Quaint series right up until book 8. I know exactly what happens, who the antagonists are and what their motive is. I know how they talk, what they look like and I could name every one of those plots right here and now. But I won't. The point is, that sometimes the idea is bigger than you. Sometimes it needs time to settle and grow a layer of dust before you can look at it with more critical eyes. And who knows; I might just settle and leave it at four books. The door is certainly open for me to do that. No one is biting my hand off for a 16 book series - and to be honest, if I had pitched a 16 book series as a debut author, which publisher in their right mind would take that sort of gamble. The ideas are there in that notebook in a skeleton form if I want them, but if not I can always utilise them and stick them elsewhere in another book about other things entirely.
In the words of Damon Albarn; nothing is wasted, only reproduced.
