Jane

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you have to change. If you have a 'method' and it's producing the goods, then why do something different? If it's not broken, then ... etc., etc.

As I said at the top of this thread, this may be another of Frey's pseudo-rules. And only one person can decide whether they want to run with the rule.

For me, personally, I can see it has its place in the toolbox.

All the best

jumbo

Thanks for the info Terry - I'll have a look later on. Checking my memory bank, it may have been '81 rather than '82. But it was like nothing I've seen before or since - and yes, the aerial work was stunning, I seem to recall insect-like pods flying about. And Parliament itself, like some funfair crazy house (so quite realistic, really). I didn't realise the show had been done in '76. What an experience to have been involved in. Was it ever filmed?
What Jane describes sounds much like the way I've been working - for want of a better description I'd say it's a kind of dialectic method, the work taking shape in argument with itself.

Joe

Thanks for the info Terry - I'll have a look later on. Checking my memory bank, it may have been '81 rather than '82. But it was like nothing I've seen before or since - and yes, the aerial work was stunning, I seem to recall insect-like pods flying about. And Parliament itself, like some funfair crazy house (so quite realistic, really). I didn't realise the show had been done in '76. What an experience to have been involved in. Was it ever filmed?
What Jane describes sounds much like the way I've been working - for want of a better description I'd say it's a kind of dialectic method, the work taking shape in argument with itself.

Joe

<Added>

Sorry, looks like I doubled clicked

Joe,

I don't recall it being filmed, and those were days before the camcorder, of course. Having said that, Welfare State were big on making the most of their events. I remember a few weeks after Parliament in Flames, John Fox showed us this poster he'd had made – a huge thing, showing a picture of Big Ben in flames surrounded by stats: '60 ft hight, 70 tons of wood, 10,000 spectators' etc. I said I thought it was a bit off, boasting like that. He just laughed and said, if you don't blow your own trumpet, nobody else will. All he had to do was show that poster at the next council meeting to discuss what they would do next (when he always wore a suit and tie, incidentally) and the funding was all but in the bag. The sort of attitude that you maybe should expect as standard in a literary agent.

Terry

Jumbo, as has already been mentioned this is almost certainly one of those things that will work for some more than others. However, I wonder whether I can draw a parallel with music? Many of the bands that I've met recently talk fervently about what their music means and the message that they're trying to put across (irrespective of whether that message is legible). Others are quite happy to say that they make music because they enjoy it and like to make good songs.

Of course, it could be argued that even a song written just for the joy of the process will inevitably have some 'plot' or message unless it consists of purely random words. If a band writes a song about loving a girl just because the words fit the chords, are they intentionally writing a love song?

I think what I'm trying to suggest is that I believe it's possible to write purely for the joy of writing and that the work created in this way can be as good on at least some levels as another work with deep philosophical sub-texts.

Oops, back to work.

J

Jon,

I agree with you about the music parallels - in fact it can probably be applied to most of the 'arts' : painting and 'modern art' come to mind.

And I think you're spot on with the comment that this 'premise' thing work for some - but not others.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

All the best

jumbo