Pity the poor publisher, inundated with unsuitable manuscripts. I've just been listening to Alison Baverstock at www.meettheauthor.com. introducing the book some of us helped her write. It's called 'Is There a Book in You?' and comes out in July.

I didn't know about this site - what a good idea. That's if you're photogenic, of course, and look the part. Alison certainly does, with just the kind of haircut you'd want for your publisher,reeking efficency. On the other hand, perhaps not the most sympathetic reader for your precious manuscript, who could be softer round the edges

I remember we discussed what the book's main focus might be when we'd responded to Alison's initial questions. Well, now we know -it's a kind of self-diagnosis book for would-be authors. Ottakars will have to put it in one of those plastic sealed covers, otherwise customers will just do the test and not buy the book. On the other hand, all those promised quotes from the famous and the unknowns alike sound interesting enough to make it worth buying, if only as a kind of bedside bible for those moments of despair. Alison gives sensible hints at success indicators - a) Do people want to read what you write? b) Can you take rejection? and c) Do have a writng 'habit'?

If you fail to score well on the test, says Alison, you should just go out and 'like the rest of us' get a life. I suspect it won't deter many, 'though. Nice attempt, Alison, but there's no way round it - carry on reading the manuscripts.

Sheila

Cornelia, that sounds interesting, and not quite what I'd imagined from talking to her. If it helps people who like writing to understand what it's really like trying to earn a living at it, that must be a good thing. At least for the ones who do go for it, the harsh reality of rounds of rejections will be less of a surprise, however painful .

The quiz does sound a bit like what I did to myself when I reached a point where I either had to go for writingand the accompanying difficulties, or get a 'proper' job.

I think 'meet the author' is an interesting site, and a good idea, given readers' appetite for seeing writers in even the e-flesh. Roger Morris did a clip like that for himself on his site.

Emma

Yes, you are right to emphasise the benefits. It seemed to this cynic it's designed to sort the sheep from the goats, although it might well deter some wannabes who lack the stamina, I suppose.

The 'Meet the Author site' is great, though - better than television adverts, and a bit like those computer dating clips where people have to sell themselves in 30 seconds. I listening whilst the author of 'Supersex' confided that having sex with the same man all the time could be boring but her book would help and then Jeffrey Archer sounding like a horror trailer voiceover to promote his Prison Diaries Volume 1 before I reined myself in. There are 701 of them - no, 935 and increasing, it seems, by the minute! This is fascinating - seeing if people resemble not their pets but their books. So far 100% in favour of the proposition!

Sheila

If you fail to score well on the test, says Alison, you should just go out and 'like the rest of us' get a life.

I think it's important for wannabe writers to realise that you have to give up quite a lot of what many people would consider 'having a life' for reasons of money or time or lack-of-distractions. In a way, that's what those infuriating people who tell you that they'd write a novel if only they had the time, are realising, without knowing it. It takes a lot of time, and that time has to come from somewhere, and do you really want it to?

It's true there are people for whom swanning about like a celebrity or having lots of cash may be an attraction, but they aren't writers as such. What I think Alison's remark fails to take into account is that writing is a life, -it's a writer's life. You wouldn't say to a not-very-good plumber or a mediocre politician for that matter, go and get a life. I know it's just one way of saying do something else, but for a writer there often is nothing much else they see the point of doing anyway, or they've already done it. Why this glib assumption that life is somehow out there,like some kind of party we are supposed to be joining in, and not something we create for ourselves in our own space and time?

I think there may be some pointers to be gleaned from this book by writers who really would like to be published, and the bad news won't deter them, although it may make them think more about managing their time. I learned a lot from reading about Anthony Trollope, who used to get up at 5am to write before setting out on his job as postmaster general or something equally onerous/prestigious in Ireland. When I suggested to someone in my class on Saturday, when he was complaining about lack of writing opportunities, that he could make a timetable, he looked at me as if I were mad. That I may be, but I thought it quite a sensible suggestion.

Sheila

I know what you're saying. Writing is a life, but it's a bit like how they say you should decide whether to get married, or become an actor: 'do I want to do this?' isn't a good enough reason, you need to feel 'can I possibly bear not to do this?' Giving her the benefit of the doubt (I haven't read the book yet) I wonder if she's simply trying to point out that you're unlikely to get anywhere if you aren't prepared to give up something, whether it's staying in bed till 7am, or going out every evening, or running a car. After all, most of us fill our lives up with something, rather than just staring at the walls, so it looks as if we don't have any time for something new.

Yes, I see what you mean. Writers know they spend a lot of time just writing, but for most of them there's a life they need to lead in order to have something to write about. Take Jeffery Archer as an example.

Sheila

There's a theory that most good novelists have about 4 or 5 really original good books in them, and then they start repeating themselves in some way.

I'm not sure whether that's the nature of creativity, or whether once you've got that kind of a backlist, or just that the life of a professional author - writing, plus lectures/signings/teaching writing/travelling to events - means you're no longer living the 'real' life (however comfortable) that you used to be able to draw on. I'm just beginning to see how - several years and books down the line - it could all multiply up to that.

Emma

I agree about the repetitions, and true fans are grateful for that. I was excited to find an Anita Brookner book I hadn't read whilst trawling library shelves for some holiday reading. I haven't been able to resist making a start, and sure enough, the mix as before, only even better,nineteen years down the line. The lonely heroine's job confines her to the basement of a book shop in Bloomsbury, a short walk from where she lives in a gloomy overfurnished flat. As all the books are absurdly lacking in incident, peopled by the same hopelessly passive characters, I can't understand the attraction. I think the prose must have an hypnotic effect, like as those subliminal advertising frames on TV they had to ban. Thank goodness I found a thriller to counteract it.

I've never seen the author at a book signing, although I once saw her walking carefully near Charing Cross, tall and stick-like with bouffant dyed red hair and dressed in a tweed suit. Just as one would expect, in fact. She must somehow resist publicity tours - certainly her writing output is steady.

People write books about their lives as travelling authors, don't they? Sue Townend says she writes best in hotel rooms. I read a book recently about authors on a book tour or perhaps it was a literary festival, but I can't remember the title. Was it by David Lodge?

I'm looking forward to an event at Greenwich Ottakars called 'How to Write a Crime Novel' with about five authors reading from their works - £1 to attend, but that's deducted from the book price if you buy one. It's the 24th or 25th April, I think. As I said before, I look forward to hearing you read your own work there. Has a date been fixed?

Sheila

You wouldn't say to a not-very-good plumber or a mediocre politician for that matter, go and get a life.

Well actually...

A lot of people hate their jobs, hate their lives, know they are a square peg in a round hole but because they can more or less keep going, they do. Being able to make the break when you reach that point needs more than just the desire to change.

I haven't met many people who are mediocre in their jobs and happy to work there. Equally, I have rarely met someone who is mediocre at their current job who would not be really great at something else.

From personal experience, making the change is daunting at the start but I've never looked back. It is almost always a kindness to reframe people's opinion of themselves to something more in line with reality.

The point is to allow writers to decide if they are hobbyists or professionals. Either one is valid, it's just a lifestyle choice.

It is almost always a kindness to reframe people's opinion of themselves to something more in line with reality.

I agree very much, if you do it when you're asked to - which anyone buying Alison Baverstock's book obviously is asking for. I even occasionally try to do a bit of it myself round WW.

But I know people for whom providing a reality-check to someone else and their work is a form of aggression, and people who read even kindly meant (if tactlessly expressed) reality checks as aggressive. So I always want to tread carefully round this kind of issue.

Emma

Because I agree with you on all fronts, I have to take issue with:

if you do it when you're asked to

When you are asked is (with the exception of specialised environments like WW) almost always the wrong time to do it as it is an unfortunate characteristic of the human animal that many people who ask that kind of question are actually looking for reassurance rather than honesty.

To be useful, everything has to be useful to the individual at the stage that they are at. A kid learning to write his first sentence is gifted if he can spell all the words correctly. A professional journalist who cannot see the significance of punctuation is in the wrong job.

It's all about a rate of change / rate of improvement measure and for that you cannot make a judgement without knowing the individual. I will always feel proud for having given a wake up call to an employee who was developing a drink problem, but as a one-off, it would be difficult to distinguish between that and a heavy night. Equally, I cringe at one or two of my more insensitive comments to others.

To me, the essence of a writer is being able to see the reasons for the feedback rather than to react emotionally to the (sometimes upsetting)
way that it is put. I consider it a compliment when I get robust feedback as I consider that the individual giving it thinks I am capable of improving because of it.

Gaius

Hi from New Zealand. I am new to the forum and this is my first post to this interesting thread.

I am not quite sure if this is relevant to the thread, but does anybody else think that to be a writer you have to live like (an archetypical) writer? My romantic impression of great novelists/artists is basically a life a pain. No money, no appreciable sales, not settled, no emotional stability, depression, eccentricity, unconventional etc etc.

Consequently I do wonder about people with little to no life experience writing novels. I always think of people like Steinbeck who was an itinerant during at least part of the depression. I assume this lifestyle provided at least some of the experience and inspiration for his work. It is an interesting issue in some way: is the imagination and life experience independent of each other or must you first have lived life before you can fully begin to write about it?

Roald Dahl once said that you can't write anything of value before you are thirty ... I think I was fifteen when I read that and consequently lost nearly twenty years on stuff that, in hindsight, is useful as material but, in foresight, I might have chosen not to do.
All this time, I wanted to write but had too much on (albeit, one of my jobs was a technical writer). When I started on fiction, I had to learn from the ground up...
Whether or not this makes me a better writer? Technically: no. Actually: I hope I'm more interesting.

I think there's something in that view, but not everything. My blood slightly curdles at the thought of 18yr olds embarking on creative writing degrees: what on earth have they got to say? Will they not be re-hashing stuff they've read, rather than using it as real writers do as a way of getting a fix on their own material? Not sure it applies to poets, perhaps, who are born and not made.

I don't know. I didn't really start writing till I was 30, mainly because I didn't have anything to say. But I don't think you need to have some wild down-and-out life to write something worth writing, just to have had a life. Mine certainly has been very ordinary and un-spectacular; it's what experiencing it has made me think about that's changed.

Having said that, I find I mine my experience from before I was a writer all the time now. Didn't know it was material when it was happening!

Emma