I was asked at a book talk last year what my favourite word is. Here's my current top five favourites.
Dichroic
This is the answer I gave. It's a word I first learned about at a craft shop, in relation to dichroic glass jewelry. The word has specific meaning when filtering light in laboratory conditions, but it comes from dichroism, the ability to split colours. The reason I like it as a descriptive term is that it is the perfect word for describing the rainbow effect of an oil spill, or any colour that appears to be more than one colour. I really like extremely specific words for things you can't otherwise explain succinctly. Especially when those words are short.
Petrichor
I don't particularly like the sound of this word, but I really appreciate what it stands for. Like dichroic, it's another of those single words that can sum up a sentence. In this case: a pleasant smell that frequently accompanies the first rain after a long period of warm, dry weather. You'd know it if you smelled it.
Threnody
I happen to think this is one of the prettiest words in the English language, right up there with ephemeral and diaphanous. It means: a lament. Which in turn means: a passionate expression of grief or sorrow. It sounds so much softer than dirge, almost a whisper. There is another word in Arabic, ghazal, which, although not as beautiful on the tongue, imparts a similar sentiment: a poetic expression of both the pain of loss or separation and the beauty of love in spite of that pain.
Ejo
This has become one of my favourite words of late. Pronounced more as ay-joo. The reason I love this word so much is that it means two completely opposite things at the same time. Such a small word capable of causing utter chaos. It's Kinyarwanda for both yesterday and tomorrow. I've spoken before about the issue of polychronic time, where things happen all at once instead of in sequence. This just makes me laugh as an explanation for why no one turns up to meetings on time: "When is the meeting?" - "Ejo". The person thinks it was yesterday and doesn't turn up tomorrow. The only way to be certain which ejo we're talking about is to add a suffix: ejo hazaza (tomorrow), ejo hashize (yesterday).
Superfluous
There are a couple of reasons I'm including this word. Firstly, because it's rather nice to say, and secondly, because it is what it describes. With so many shorter ways of saying something is OTT, too much, and more commonly excessive, unnecessary or surplus to requirement, the very word superfluous is almost always superfluous. I like that about it.
I would like to say halfway, but this novel is proving a minor pain in the proverbials. None of the characters are doing quite what they're supposed to, which I suppose is to be expected in Hookland?
Instead of being a fun 80,000 romp through ghostie town, it looks like it's going to be a longer meander through the haunted forest.
I'm not sure whether I should be worried.
I'm not bothering to include chapters this time round. I've discovered that it's easier just to write the manuscript, then try to pick evenly spaced, natural chapter breaks in the edit. Or, at least, it's a lot less to think about when you don't include chapters. Whether it will be easy to find evenly spaced, natural breaks in the edit, remains to be seen.
I'm enjoying myself, but things have been hampered slightly. David's had some internet issues, and I'm awaiting a neatly wrapped bundle of information on a couple of locations in Hookland that aren't in the Writer's Bible. Starting to understand the problems associated with collaborative works. Still popping in a few [place holders] for scenes I'll have to write in the edit, once all the facts are in. If I can't get those details, I think I'll just have to invent them, being careful not to unbalance the natural order of the county.
It's been tweeted now, so I think it's safe to share. Below is a picture of the first map of Hookland. My story is set in Barrowcross, in the south-west of the county, including a couple of characters from Hook and Ashcourt.
It's been going well this week. Aided by a couple of creepy encounters and one sassy scene - always gets the fingers tapping. I'd like to share some of it, but the manuscript is in such a mess at the moment. I've done no as-you-go editing so far and I'm not in the mood to start. But I will try to have something to show in a week or two.
Don't forget, you can follow along with Hookland on Twitter: @HooklandGuide
The first novel I ever wrote, Lucid, was written in third person. I think the reason for this was that pretty much every novel I remember reading as a kid was written in third person. I just assumed that's how you did it.
Lucid was the first written, but the third published. Angorichina became my debut novel. It was a story I had long wanted to tell, about a TB sanatorium in 1930s South Australia. Somewhere I had passed through, and whose ghosts still haunted my thoughts.
I tried several times to write that novel, but it just wouldn't come. Not until I switched to first person one night, and suddenly it was as though all of the characters had turned up to tell me their stories.
This started a trend: Georg[i]e, Splintered Door, Those Rosy Hours at Mazandaran, The Children of Lir and my nemesis novel (the one in a drawer, that will never see the light of day), were all written as first person, and it's only with my most recent endeavour, The Secret Order of the Literati, that I've switched back to third.
Before I go any further, let me just clarify these terms so that we're all on the same page:
First Person: I
Example 1: I saw him approaching across the room.
Example 2: Those were mine and I wanted them.
Third Person: She/He
Example 1: She watched him approaching across the room.
Or: Sarah watched him approaching across the room
Example 2: She looked at him as though she didn't know him.
Or: James's wife looked at him as though she didn't know him.
So, what happened to second person?
Second Person: You
Example: You are walking down the street when you are approached by a strange man. You look at him, but you do not recognise him.
This doesn't sit so comfortably in fiction, so we ignore it unless we're writing Fighting Fantasyor Choose Yours Own Adventure books.
Whether you're going to tell your story from first or third person is one of those important details you really ought to figure out before you start writing - even if you're not a planner.
You should know by the end of the first page which perspective you're going to use, because - like tense - it's a total bugger to change later on. Every single line on every page reinforces the perspective you've chosen, so to switch from one to another is going to require editing every single line on every single page. A problem best avoided with a few moments' forethought.
A quick test is to think of a scene in your novel. Even if you haven't thought out the entire thing yet, there must be a small idea, a scene, a character rattling around at the back of your mind - something that typifies the tale you wish to tell.
Write it down - just a couple of paragraphs.
Have you written it in first or third person?
You have probably already gravitated towards one or the other. If it reads well, and you're happy with it, that's probably the perspective to stick with. If you're uncertain, then just try rewriting that paragraph from the other perspective and see if it reads any better.
Here's an example from Rosy Hours, which was written in first person:
It's a subtle change, but it can make a big difference to your story.
To understand why, it's worth exploring some of the pros and cons of each perspective:
First Person
Pros:
It is very immediate. This will engage your readers quickly.
The reader feels as though they are living the story through the eyes of the character.
It allows you to explore a character's thoughts and feelings in depth.
It's easy to mislead a reader, or direct their attention, when they only receive the story from one perspective.
It's easy to show a situation from two completely different angles if you use multiple first person. For example, two characters witnessing a car crash - one by the side of the road, another from the passenger seat. The reader thinks they understand what happened, until they get the other side of the story.
Cons
If the reader doesn't like the character, they may disengage sooner.
You can't explore the thoughts and feelings of other characters with such intimacy. You can only observe their expressions or speculate on their inner thoughts based on what your main character can see and hear.
You are tied to the location of your main character, unless they're having an out of body experience.
The reader can't easily know something the character does not, unless they've pieced together clues the character appears blind to.
If you have multiple first-person characters, they can start to sound like the same person unless you give them very distinct voices.
Third Person
Pros
The reader can view the story from an observational stance, like looking through a window. They pick up pieces of the story from many different locations and characters, rather than just what they're told by the narrating character.
You can flit between characters easily because you're not tied to the location, observations and emotions of one character. The narrator is omnipresent.
It's easier to fool about with time frames and chronology when you're not rooted to one character's experiences.
The narrator can comment freely on what is going on without having to maintain character at all times. Something can happen, and the author can make a quip or a judgement in the text without it having to be spoken or felt by a specific character.
Cons
It is less intimate than first person, so may take a little longer for people to get into the story. The author acts as a middle wo/man between the reader and the characters.
You may have to work harder at building an emotional attachment between reader and character, and readers may forget minor characters quicker, or become more easily confused, because of that lack of first person emotional anchor, and the increased speed of plot that omnipresence affords.
Everybody will have their own opinions on this, but a general rule of thumb might be:
First Person When:
You are telling a story that is strongly rooted in emotions and emotional reactions.
Your story centres on one main character or a small number of main characters.
Your story relies on the difference of perspective between characters (i.e. what really happened that night at the party).
You want the reader to see the storythrough your characters' eyes.
Third Person When:
You are telling a story that is strongly rooted in action.
You have multiple characters.
Your story relies strongly on the interaction of those characters, and the consequences of those actions, across multiple locations.
You want your reader to journey with the narrator, and see the big picture.
Most writers have an instinctive feel for the perspective of their story at the outset, but it really is worth playing before you commit.
If I've missed anything out, do drop a comment below.
I wasn't expecting to do much on Creeper's Cottage this week. I had a guest blog and a short story to write. But I managed to whizz through them. I'll post about the blog article when it goes live - might not be for a couple of weeks. There's a competition giveaway too, for a signed copy of Rosy Hours and an audiobook. That should be fun.
I'm not going to say anything more about the short story because I don't know if it's been accepted yet. Waiting to see how that goes.
But I have also managed to add another 10k to Creeper's this week.
It's fought me every step of the way. Really been struggling with it and I'm not entirely sure why. The plot makes sense, the characters are fine. It's a slow build, as thrillers and mysteries often are. You can't keep people in a perpetual state of wonder, so you have to pick your moments and build it up piece by piece.
I think it's just been one of those slow writing weeks. They happen sometimes. A run of days where you're just going through the motions rather than living the story. As I've mentioned in interviews before, whether the writing is easy or hard often has little bearing on whether the writing is good or not. Something can flow easily but turn out to be disappointing, and something can feel like wringing blood from a stone but turn out to be rather entertaining. You really never know until it's all over and you can step back to admire the full picture.
Still, line by line, scene by scene, it's appearing on the paper.
Also having plenty of fun meeting with publishers and writers in Rwanda. I'll blog more about that next week.
Right now, I'm looking forward to a day off tomorrow.
When I came [to Africa] for the first time, I only knew about runners and about famine. So I was really upset with this image because I knew that something different should happen there, no? And I wanted to discover it because I have this spirit of adventure. I wanted to discover what was going on there and I discovered nice music like Alemayehu Eshete Mahmoud, all the music from the sixties. And also, I started discovering landscapes and the people. I started to discover that the people, everywhere in the world, have to dream a little bit. So you’re not only going to portray what you see. You are going to make the people, and yourself, dream. Sometimes people ask, “If you go to Africa, don’t you have to portray what you see?” No, you can also dream, you can also play with the reality.
I'm going to start tweeting @rwandaff and @RwandaFilmFest to see if we can get it at Rwanda Film Fest (Hillywood) this year. I would love to see it.
The total core funding of the project for 2015/16 is £1million from British Council reserves, backed up by £1million match funding from the GREAT Britain Campaign. The program runs from January to December 2016, awaiting funding confirmation from the GREAT Britain Campaign for 2017.
This funding primarily supports the production of central design, project and social media campaign assets as well as licences and opportunities for showcasing film and other creative content internationally.
The priority 'market' countries for the scheme are:
China
India
USA
Brazil
Mexico
South Korea
Indonesia
Turkey
Poland
France
Germany
Japan
Not a bad reach for two million quid.
Though I first heard about it through the British Council in Kigali.
Although it doesn't come to any particular cut-and-dried conclusion, it does raise some important points, such as ''Making something compulsory usually has the effect of making it resented." Not that Shakespeare Lives is compulsory, it's more of a celebration, but it brought back memories of many a school English lesson.
Often, when you say you're not that fussed about Shakespeare, you're met with the condescending reproach: 'Oh, you just don't understand Shakespeare,' or 'You haven't had the right teacher.'
Believe me, I do and I have.
I studied Shakespeare during English at high school. Then again at performing arts school, aged 16-18. During my BA in Theatre Arts, I not only studied Shakespeare, I translated and annotated scenes from Antony & Cleopatra into British Sign Language and back. There's actually a signed performance of The Tempest, featuring one of my tutors. I've been to The Globe a couple of times, even stood on its stage for a behind the scenes look.
Third from left, back row.
I've studied Shakespeare in some depth. To the extent that I know what a faux pas it is to admit that my favourite play is probably Titus Andronicus.
But, in total and complete honesty, I wouldn't say he blows my bollocks off. He may be 'the world's favourite playwright,' but I'd rather watch Philip Ridley any day.
Yes, Shakespeare was the originator of many an original plot. But there's a risk that by perpetually reincarnating old work, we miss out on some splendid new stuff.
And no, it doesn't have to be an either or situation. You can enjoy old stuff and still have new stuff, but when it comes down to: what would you rather do with two million pounds?
Well, I'd rather invest it in supporting publishers of contemporary work in places that probably don't desperately need Shakespeare right now.
I did an MA in Language & Communication Research. I sometimes find Shakespeare hard going. It's so much of a challenge for native English speakers that it's regularly re-imagined using modern language and interpretive dance.
When we're talking about ways in which to get second-language English speakers enthusiastic about reading and writing English, a 400-year dead bard probably isn't the best route forward.
I mean, this stuff is kick-ass good. Not some long-dead British dude imagining Bohemia with a coastline, but people with strong geographical knowledge of lesser travelled places, inventing the future and the present in language that astounds.
Recently, someone interested in creative writing sent me a manuscript. She's a writer from East Africa, writing in a fantasy style that was slightly off key. She considers herself a fan of romance, and when asked for her favourite author, cited Danielle Steel. Yet in writing exercises she opted to describe the landscape of outer space, rather than the bench beneath the cherry blossom. Let's put aside the question of whether her reading tastes would be different if she'd had access to science fiction, not just the books benevolent expats felt they could throw out of their long-haul luggage.
I've spoken about the problems lack of access brings for artists in developing economic countries. Countries where you can't sell anything you write, and you can't read anything anyone else has written. Yay for technology in the twenty-first century.
Many of this writer's characters were blue-eyed, living in LA or Australia, yet they spoke about relationships and desires in a distinctly rural African tone.
If you've ever watched Chimamanda Adichie's TED talk on The Danger of a Single Story, you'll understand what might have happened:
I was also an early writer, and when I began to write, at about the age of seven, stories in pencil with crayon illustrations that my poor mother was obligated to read, I wrote exactly the kinds of stories I was reading: All my characters were white and blue-eyed, they played in the snow, they ate apples, and they talked a lot about the weather, how lovely it was that the sun had come out.
Now, this despite the fact that I lived in Nigeria. I had never been outside Nigeria. We didn't have snow, we ate mangoes, and we never talked about the weather, because there was no need to.
My characters also drank a lot of ginger beer, because the characters in the British books I read drank ginger beer. Never mind that I had no idea what ginger beer was...
Now, I loved those American and British books I read. They stirred my imagination. They opened up new worlds for me. But the unintended consequence was that I did not know that people like me could exist in literature. So what the discovery of African writers did for me was this: It saved me from having a single story of what books are.
It's natural for all writers to emulate other writers and the type of writing they admire when they're first setting out. All of us, whatever nationality, play with pastiche. It's how we learn.
But at a certain point, in most of our cultures, we're encouraged to stop emulating others and find our own voice. We're told that we have a voice, and that this voice is something other people would like to hear.
Whereas in many countries - those where you have no national examples of internationally selling authors, you can't sell your own work online, and your publishing industry is in its infancy - you might never receive that message. You can end up thinking that in order to get read, in order to be a good writer, you need to be like other writers. When the other writers you have access to are Shakespeare, Enid Blyton and Danielle Steel, that can become a little limiting. Pastiche no longer acts as a learning tool, but a template.
That is why people like Nii Parkes, Okorafor and Adichie are so bloody important.
And why, if we're going to talk about what to do with two million pounds, I'd rather see it invested not in exporting Shakespeare to Africa, but in exporting Africa to the rest of the world. Developing African literature courses - including playwrights - capacity-building publishers, campaigning for fair online payment systems that provide access to the international market. If you were doing that and Shakespeare, great. But if you had to choose one?
Sure, college courses and university degrees in Shakespeare are great, introductory drama workshops and interactive online modules. Wonderful. Keep heritage alive, by all means, and let those who want to take it further, take it further. But Shakespeare is not as accessible, engaging or culturally relevant as many other, living, contemporary, multifaceted working authors. He certainly doesn't need the money as much. The few times he has been globally magnetic in the recent past have been with a Hollywood budget, an A-list cast and a pyrotechnic team behind him. With that, you could make Poetics of Aristotle chair-gripping stuff.
We have very limited resources. Cuts to the arts are chronic. What is the very best, most useful approach we can take with limited finances available? What will have a lasting impact on aspiring writers in Africa, and what's likely to breed a fresh generation of readers?
Maybe four hundred years down the line, it's time to let go, just a little bit, and embrace the living.
