I've decided not to post the articles that have been rejected (through inaction) by a certain newspaper. Not yet, anyway. They might still change their mind, or rather, decide tardily to make up their mind, and I suppose I had better not get their backs up too much in the meantime.
I wouldn't recommend anyone to be a writer. Even now that my book is published, no one outside a small circle of enthusiasts appears to be interested in it, and none of the nationals has shown the slightest interest in reviewing it, even though it contains substantial new info on one of the most influential writers in the English language and is (though I say it myself) ruddy well written.
It is also no way to get rich.
Unfortunately, becoming a writer isn't really a matter of choice. It's a kind of compulsion. I write plays and don't get paid for it, I have written a book for which I have been paid a small amount (now blown to the four winds) and which I happily promote for no money and in fact at personal expense. How do they do it, the rich writers? Will Self and the other guys whose names I can't think of at the moment? They are keep themselves airborne somehow, despite the fact that minimal numbers of people appear to read their works.
It's a mystery.
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
In the beginning
Maybe I shouldn't say too much about this at the moment, but let's just say it looks like the BBC will be doing its bit to mark the Gilbert centenary.... More later, possibly.
I have a strange between-projects feeling at the moment, though I should be pressing on with the articles to publicise the book. I am also trying to write a play (actually two plays, a biggie and a little one-acter for a local showcase called Page to Stage) and there are other distractions as well. I stayed in yesterday, intending to write, but ended up wasting practically every minute. So today I went out and I've already achieved more. For one thing, I'm writing this blog!
I've nothing to say today, so maybe I could spend ten minutes describing the origins of the Gilbert biography. I've been obsessed with the man since I was about fifteen, and for about ten years my G&S friends have been saying I should write his biography. Abut three years ago I started tinkering with the idea. I wrote a ridiculous draft of a first chapter in which I thought I could get away with skimming over his childhood and starting with the "interesting" bit, his first plays (written at the age of 30). Because the fact is that I always find the early "childhood" chapters by far the most boring part of any biography, and naively I thought they might be unnecessary in Gilbert's case because so little is known about his early years. However, as I tried to proceed on that assumption it rapidly became more and more obvious that this could not possibly work. How can you construct the building without laying the foundation? Without Gilbert's childhood, he is incomprehensible. He is a miraculous goblin without motivation or background.
But still the problem remained. If you look at the previous biographies you see that very little has been written about his childhood, and the overwhelming impression is that there is no evidence to fill in the details. But as I dug more I realised this was not really the case. David Eden's deliberately provocative book W.S. Gilbert: Appearance and Reality contains a wealth of new information (and speculation) about Gilbert's family background, though assembled in no very coherent order. For my own satisfaction (I still didn't have a book contract at this point) I tried to reassemble Eden's information in a logical order, weeding out parts that I did not feel were supported by the facts (such as his contention that Gilbert's father was an alcoholic who had admitted himself into a lunatic asylum for his own good--an interesting idea, but one with no concrete support at all except father Gilbert's own descriptions of delirium tremens and lunatic asylums, written as part of novels and researched articles).
I also found other sources of information in Gilbert's own articles. His humorous articles for Fun include a good number of evidently autobiographical fragments which, amazingly, have not been used bhy previous writers. They describe his school days, his early affections, his time working at the Education Office. Other articles illuminate such matters as his view of childhood in general--"the most miserable period of our existence" he called it, as I recall without going to the faff of checking the quotation--and his early adoration of the pantomime Harlequinade.
I tinkered with this first chapter for about a year. Then, through a process which I will not describe in detail bt which boils down to knowing someone who knew a publisher, I got my contract, and I set to work with a will. I had already amassed enough new material (from the Fun columns) to convince me that it was worth doing. I took a research trip to London, and I made an entirely new Discovery which made me realise that previous biographers really had not covered the territory as I had thought, and that there really were new things to find out about Gilbert. That's a story for later, I think. But I will say this, not going into detail. At every stage of the writing I kept finding out new things which revived my interest in the project just as it flagged. Maybe it was finding his war dispatches for The Observer, maybe it was discovering a new article by him describing his "last client", and maybe it was reading the reviews of his plays which laid bare how much some of the critics loathed him. But it all added up to create (I hope) something like one of my early ideas of what the biography should be: a kaleidoscopic view of the man from all kinds of angles, contradictory and incoherent and multi-faceted. That book would have been called Aspects of Gilbert, in case you're interested.
Another idea I had was to write a seriously eccentric biography arranged like an encyclopedia under different headings. That would have been called The Gilbert Encyclopedia: An A-Y of Gilbert. Everyone I told about that objected that with a bit of finessing I could easily find an entry or two for Z (characters in some of his plays, like Zeolide and Zayda). I don't think they realised I wanted it to be an A-Y: it would be funnier. However. The eccentric ideas fell by the wayside, and what I've ended up with is something like a conventional biography, though with the slight oddity of not attempting to be utterly comprehensive as most biographies try to be these days.
That's enough for one day.
I have a strange between-projects feeling at the moment, though I should be pressing on with the articles to publicise the book. I am also trying to write a play (actually two plays, a biggie and a little one-acter for a local showcase called Page to Stage) and there are other distractions as well. I stayed in yesterday, intending to write, but ended up wasting practically every minute. So today I went out and I've already achieved more. For one thing, I'm writing this blog!
I've nothing to say today, so maybe I could spend ten minutes describing the origins of the Gilbert biography. I've been obsessed with the man since I was about fifteen, and for about ten years my G&S friends have been saying I should write his biography. Abut three years ago I started tinkering with the idea. I wrote a ridiculous draft of a first chapter in which I thought I could get away with skimming over his childhood and starting with the "interesting" bit, his first plays (written at the age of 30). Because the fact is that I always find the early "childhood" chapters by far the most boring part of any biography, and naively I thought they might be unnecessary in Gilbert's case because so little is known about his early years. However, as I tried to proceed on that assumption it rapidly became more and more obvious that this could not possibly work. How can you construct the building without laying the foundation? Without Gilbert's childhood, he is incomprehensible. He is a miraculous goblin without motivation or background.
But still the problem remained. If you look at the previous biographies you see that very little has been written about his childhood, and the overwhelming impression is that there is no evidence to fill in the details. But as I dug more I realised this was not really the case. David Eden's deliberately provocative book W.S. Gilbert: Appearance and Reality contains a wealth of new information (and speculation) about Gilbert's family background, though assembled in no very coherent order. For my own satisfaction (I still didn't have a book contract at this point) I tried to reassemble Eden's information in a logical order, weeding out parts that I did not feel were supported by the facts (such as his contention that Gilbert's father was an alcoholic who had admitted himself into a lunatic asylum for his own good--an interesting idea, but one with no concrete support at all except father Gilbert's own descriptions of delirium tremens and lunatic asylums, written as part of novels and researched articles).
I also found other sources of information in Gilbert's own articles. His humorous articles for Fun include a good number of evidently autobiographical fragments which, amazingly, have not been used bhy previous writers. They describe his school days, his early affections, his time working at the Education Office. Other articles illuminate such matters as his view of childhood in general--"the most miserable period of our existence" he called it, as I recall without going to the faff of checking the quotation--and his early adoration of the pantomime Harlequinade.
I tinkered with this first chapter for about a year. Then, through a process which I will not describe in detail bt which boils down to knowing someone who knew a publisher, I got my contract, and I set to work with a will. I had already amassed enough new material (from the Fun columns) to convince me that it was worth doing. I took a research trip to London, and I made an entirely new Discovery which made me realise that previous biographers really had not covered the territory as I had thought, and that there really were new things to find out about Gilbert. That's a story for later, I think. But I will say this, not going into detail. At every stage of the writing I kept finding out new things which revived my interest in the project just as it flagged. Maybe it was finding his war dispatches for The Observer, maybe it was discovering a new article by him describing his "last client", and maybe it was reading the reviews of his plays which laid bare how much some of the critics loathed him. But it all added up to create (I hope) something like one of my early ideas of what the biography should be: a kaleidoscopic view of the man from all kinds of angles, contradictory and incoherent and multi-faceted. That book would have been called Aspects of Gilbert, in case you're interested.
Another idea I had was to write a seriously eccentric biography arranged like an encyclopedia under different headings. That would have been called The Gilbert Encyclopedia: An A-Y of Gilbert. Everyone I told about that objected that with a bit of finessing I could easily find an entry or two for Z (characters in some of his plays, like Zeolide and Zayda). I don't think they realised I wanted it to be an A-Y: it would be funnier. However. The eccentric ideas fell by the wayside, and what I've ended up with is something like a conventional biography, though with the slight oddity of not attempting to be utterly comprehensive as most biographies try to be these days.
That's enough for one day.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
Writing
The first proper work day of the new year, and, perhaps predictably, I have achieved less than on most of my "rest days" over Christmas. The prospect of work always drives me to seek something else to do. Today, I cleared the drive of leaves, trimmed the hedge, and went to Ilkley to retrieve a scarf that I had left at Betty's Tea Rooms when we were there two weeks ago.
I have been thinking about my personal relationship with Gilbert and his plays. I probably need to say something about myself first. I am forty-one years old, I live in Bradford, and I think of myself as a writer. I have always loved ideas, and words, and jokes, and plots. I have written plays which have been performed in Bradford and which people genuinely seem to like. I have not managed to sell any of them to a professional company, but I have hopes for the next one.
Ah, the next one. That's the point. I've written the first page, a week or two ago, but I'm stuck, and I need to push it forward. And fast. In my mind the play is a masterpiece. (Aren't they always, before they get written down?) I am perenially amazed and awed by the fact that Gilbert, at the height of his creativity, could rely on being able to write a full length play in two months. How did he have such a level of self-confidence? And how was he able to back up that self-confidence by actually writing brilliant plays like Tom Cobb or Engaged in those circumstances?
His style is fastidious to an amazing extent, his plots are works of art in themselves (though his first critics thought he had no talent for construction, oddly). Where he is at a disadvantage, especially today, is in the portrayal of psychologically convincing characters who change in the conventional dramatic manner. His characters are types--though they are often types of unusual and unfamiliar kinds.
I have been thinking about my personal relationship with Gilbert and his plays. I probably need to say something about myself first. I am forty-one years old, I live in Bradford, and I think of myself as a writer. I have always loved ideas, and words, and jokes, and plots. I have written plays which have been performed in Bradford and which people genuinely seem to like. I have not managed to sell any of them to a professional company, but I have hopes for the next one.
Ah, the next one. That's the point. I've written the first page, a week or two ago, but I'm stuck, and I need to push it forward. And fast. In my mind the play is a masterpiece. (Aren't they always, before they get written down?) I am perenially amazed and awed by the fact that Gilbert, at the height of his creativity, could rely on being able to write a full length play in two months. How did he have such a level of self-confidence? And how was he able to back up that self-confidence by actually writing brilliant plays like Tom Cobb or Engaged in those circumstances?
His style is fastidious to an amazing extent, his plots are works of art in themselves (though his first critics thought he had no talent for construction, oddly). Where he is at a disadvantage, especially today, is in the portrayal of psychologically convincing characters who change in the conventional dramatic manner. His characters are types--though they are often types of unusual and unfamiliar kinds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)