only question the novelist need ask

There is only one question a novelist need ask himself:

What do I want?

Not: what does the editor want, what does the reader want, what does the public want, what does the critic want, what does my mother want, what does my best friend want?

Of course it is possible to write with all or any of the above questions in mind but you'll find when the going gets tough your mind will begin to skate unless you pull up and say to yourself- screw all the rest- what do I want to write here? It's the only way to break though the topsoil into the clay beneath. And clay is the stuff real people are moulded from.

traditional parenting

Just as we have seen a move in the last forty years towards using traditional foodstuffs that haven't been mucked around by chemicals, hormones and anti-biotics; so I think we'll see a return to using the main ideas of traditional parenting, but in balance with whatever genuine modern benefits we have accrued. An analogy might be using organic vegetables but cooking with a juicer, mixer and an electric oven. I searched quickly on amazon for books on traditional parenting- there are plenty on non-traditional- but NONE on the good points of traditional parenting. It's a tricky subject because in the current era the culture suggests we blame our parents for just about EVERYTHING. So if the modern world is less than perfect then our parents - and their methods of parenting- must be at fault. The fact that the phrase 'traditional parenting' is now a cliche for bad 'Victorian Dad' type parenting means that the time is ripe for change- when something is a bonehead TV cliche its usually 100% wrong. Just as traditional food has been rediscovered, so too will the lost skills of previous generations of parents begin to be revalued- in all cultures not just our own. This is a key point- the Irish had organic potatoes before the famine- but it wasnt a healthy balanced diet. We may have to widen the search for better versions of traditional than our own recent past.

building fictional characters #2

The question you want to be able answer about a potential character is: can I run with this? You can build up a character full of quirks and contradictions and then find he or she just doesn't move of their own accord- you're always having to cattleprod them from scene to scene. You know you're in this pickle when the thought of writing new scenes seems like a drag (or a bigger drag than usual). You want a character with LEGS which carry them around gaily and happily or even grumpily but at least carry them. So you need to keep trying on characteristics that seem to chime in with the name and character's context, seem to mix into a potent cocktail that moves. For example I spent a long time building this character X who was supposed to be an expert on the jungle, knew about plants, etc etc...but it was all a bit static. No legs. Then I had a mid-morning coffee break insight that X was tough. That was it. I had my legs. I like writing about toughness and now I had my chance. So, it is likely that the key driving characteristic may be somthing simple that appeals to YOU, gets YOU a bit excited- or excited enough to want to write about it. One must always ignore what is 'good' or 'acceptable to the audience' at this stage- it's all about charging your own generative powers with whatever fuel they need.

building fictional characters

Embark on your novel at peril if you haven't nailed your characters. Character can be done last but it involves headache inducing rewrites. Instead get 'em nailed first. Number one- get the name right, this goes hand in hand with what I call the moment of squint-truth: this cumbersome phrase refers to the inner mental squint you make to try and capture your character in some defining moment or relationship. For one of my characters it is the fact that he has an unnecessary 'enemy', for another that she has a huge first aid kit- these captured moments seem to set up the right improvising energy needed to make the character thrive. It's rather like getting the right hat for a role on stage. Wear the right hat and you know how to speak, go on stage in the wrong hat and you're tongue tied. The right defining feature will also, usually, highlight a contradiction within the character- people who are internally torn are always more interesting- and lifelike.

Slave?

"The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as civilisation, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement."

Tacitus. The Agricola

spiral thinking and walking

When we circle a subject we often end up going round and round in circles. When we spiral a subject we end up with a better result. Walking seems to add forward momentum to thinking- stretching a circle out into a spiral. Charles Dickens considered it 'immoral' to write for more hours than he walked. Walking was how he solved the problems which, sitting at a desk, would have just remained in a circle chasing its tail around his head. People have used walking to come up with new solutions for centuries but by adding the image of spiralling a subject as you walk you'll find your abilities to think things up kick started in a useful way.

stories

Another great Keith Johnstone insight: The improviser who does not tell stories is chained to the treadmill of always needing a 'better' joke.