http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/insight/paul_cornell.shtml

Thought I'd flag up this interview with writer Paul Cornell on the BBC Writers Room site – it perked me up amid my recent round of rejections.

Cornell has written for Doctor Who, Casualty and other programmes and has plenty of hard-hitting advice for writers seeking publication. He talks about how important it is to learn from rejection, to seek out criticism of your work and why he thinks writing is a teachable skill.

He also recommends two books on writing that he rates most highly (R McKee's Story and S King's On Writing) and talks about why he relies on writing a story outline before getting stuck in.

WWers may not agree with everything he says, but I found his advice constructive and encouraging.

I've had a quick read and there's some good stuff in there. I particularly like what he says about real writers being those who listen to criticism. I've done a lot of teaching, coaching and editing, and still find it remarkable that you can tell a writer what isn't working in their story - based on experience and the desire to help them - and they will then 'explain' how you haven't understood what they're trying to do, or how it will all become clear later, etc. By contrast, the ones who listen and change are the ones who really improve, fast.

I don't agree with him that there are only two good books on writing, and definitely don't agree that Stephen King's is one of them. I suspect taste comes into this to a degree: if you like Stephen King's work, then I guess you'll be interested in a book full of stories about his life. If you don't, you'll just be thinking this book could have a hell of a lot shorter.

Terry

This was a good interview. Thanks for posting.

I'm thinking a lot about critiques and just read a vigorous debate in Women's Fiction about it. It seems to me there are so many aspects to critiquing and for the writer it is quite difficult to sort out what advice to follow. I've recently shown my opening chapters to a critiquer, my novelists group and WW members - and there are almost as many opinions as there are people. Several of the opinions expressed clashed with each other. How, then, does one decide which to follow? Of course, where several people express the same opinion, that's a clear sign to take notice. But at the moment I feel like the man in this story:

A man went to a tailor to buy a new suit. At the first fitting, one sleeve was too long. "Never mind," said the tailor. "Just stretch out your arm a bit and it'll be fine." At the next fitting, the trousers were too short. "Never mind," said the tailor, "Just bend your knees a bit and it'll be fine." And so it went on. When the suit was ready, the man wore it out on the street. Two people passed him. One said: "Oh, did you see that poor, crippled man?" The other replied: "Yes, but wasn't he wearing a wonderful suit?"

Hmm. Maybe not such a great example. We are, after all, the tailors and it's up to us to make the best suit we're capable of.

Susiex

Of course when working with any 'teacher' it is imortant to respect and believe in the person who is doing the teaching. If one has doubts about their expertise then it can be counter-productive to take on board what they are saying. Working with someone whose skills you believe in is incredibly useful but if you have doubts about them then it is obviously less productive.

That's where a range of opinions can be so helpful. At first the diversity of advice and opinion can be over-whelming but if you leave it for a few days and then look again at what people have said I normally find that a pattern emerges in what people are saying. You begin to see that certain issues are causing problems.

Of course then there is the issue of how one goes about rectifying those problems. Personally I like to hear different opinions and experiment as to which will be most productive for my needs as there is rarely a single 'correct' answer. However, if you have someone you trust it may well be easier to look to that person for a solution.

Saturday

Saturday, I think you may be touching on the difference between teacher and coach here.

Where teachers are concerned, I don't think it's actually necessary to respect/believe in the person, only their skills and experience. After all, I'm sure we all learned from teachers at school we couldn't stand as people. But if they knew what they were talking about where the subject was concerned, we just took the goods and ignored the person.

Coaching is different. Trust is definitely required. A coach has to set out the principles by which he works, and he and the writer have to agree, as a contract, on their working practice before they start. This doesn't necessarily mean the writer has to trust the coach as a person either; however, a good coach's working principles will - some would say should - stem from similar principles by which he lives his life in general. So, the trust involved from the writer is in effect for the person of the coach too. However, it's still the contractual agreement between them that forms the bedrock for the relationship.

A complication in this area is that good teacher/coaches are not necessarily the most successful writers. This is true in other fields, of course - sport, music, art, etc. So, a writer who wants to find a good teacher/coach needs to examine their expertise as a teacher/coach, more than their expertise as a writer. This isn't always easy in the writing worlds, unfortunately, partly because teaching/coaching is not something that a lot of writers readily admit to needing or seeking.

Terry