I've got
an awful lot of writing to do. Henley's is out there, in ebook
form, although I also want to pitch it as a stage play. Ushabti,
as a novella, is my current project, currently having it's first edit. Fairfax,
as fond of him as I am, will have to remain in storage, for some time
to come, because I really want to get Midnight At The Alhambra
under way as a full size novel. The story is complete, on index cards
and a cork board, so I should get off to a flying start, once I have
got my loose ends tied up.
Add to
that, I have a massive reading list. I do not write at the expense of
giving up reading. How can you write, if you don't read? My list is
long, because I have met so many authors in recent years, and one or
two of whom I regard as friends.
I cannot
lay claim to have come face to face with JK Rowling, but out of
curiosity I had pre-ordered her latest book, A Casual Vacancy.
I fully expected the critics to be chomping at the bit only to
willing to wobble her pedestal, especially after committing the cardinal
sin of crossing genres to crime writing. Many others have done the same without comment, but it's tough at the top, Jo, as they say. Although the Harry Potter
books defined JKR, surely,
commercially she should be regarded as a brand rather than genre
specific. I have not finished reading it yet, but from what I have
seen, it doesn't appear to be overtly clichéd as the critics say it
is. And even if it is, would the average reader care? It doesn't drag on so much that I start thinking about what I'm
going to have for tea whilst skimming over the pages, although there
are others that would disagree. I think the book is quintessentially
English enough to lend itself easily to quite a reasonable film
starring the likes of Stephen Fry at the one end of the spectrum to Ray Winstone at the other end. .
Is
JKR a great writer? Commercially, she has been a phenomenally great
writer. Yes, but is she a great writer? Maybe. Her books, I'm sure
will be revered for many generations to come. The fantasy world of
Harry Potter is
timeless, as tales of witches and goblins have been entertaining
mankind for generations, and I can't see any reason why that will
change. So supposing she continues as a crime writer, can she be
regarded as a great writer for her post HP work? I think she can, as
long that there is a pertinent message for future generations, then
maybe. Dickens was a great social historian, showing an empathy for
the poor that was not shared by many during those harsh Victorian
times. Thomas Hardy, painted idealistic pastoral pictures in the
readers mind of rural England. My Thomas Hardy years were during the
worst of the cold war, when our country, may be the world could be
annihilated at the touch of a button, and some of those who could
afford it were falling over themselves to sink subterranean nuclear
fallout shelters at the bottom of their gardens.
My
point being that Hardy was a master of describing the ordinary man's
attitudes, values and beliefs and the message for me was their fears
were exactly the same as ours. The fact that the average British
citizen believed that it was just a matter of time before the French
came over and murdered us in our beds. The might of Napoleon,
appeared unstoppable, but we had not reckoned on the strategic
cunning of Lord Nelson and the Duke of Wellington who went onto be the greatest rock star superheroes our country have ever known. It irks me that so many of our young folk don't know that.
The
blurb on JK's new book, describes conflicts between classes as war,
with the people of Pagford's clashing
with the tenants on the neighbouring council estate. JK Rowling
describes her fictitious neighbourhood well, illustrating social
decline, in a benefit state. However, Charles Moore, of the Telegraph, accuses her of turning her back on a provincial life, the life that inspired her to escape into a world of fantasy and create Harry Potter. He said, and I quote, ''JK Rowling has told the world that this is a book she “had to write”. She detests snobbery, she says, and she wishes to expose it. She has very simple codes to indicate who is bad. Anyone who has a slightly out-of-date, petit-bourgeois Christian name, like Howard, Shirley or Maureen, is bad. Such people’s evil is proved by the fact that they have carriage lamps outside their doors, refer to the sitting-room as the “lounge”, wear deerstalkers (indoors!) and candlewick dressing-gowns.'' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9573579/JK-Rowling-has-turned-her-back-on-the-culture-that-made-her-great.html
Maybe it's fair comment, and it's quite likely that many will agree. However, I also think that JKR may be painting a more objective picture of the provincial life and depict, (as many of us in the UK are experiencing), the fact that good manners and respect have gone out of fashion, criminality is on the increase, as is drug use, binge drinking, domestic violence, and riots. I could go on.
Despite JKR's well publicised struggle as a single mum, given the circumstances she was in, she surely must have had a better existence then than what she could expect today.
If
she hadn't written Harry Potter,
but secured a publishing deal for A Casual Vacancy, I do believe she
may not have found herself sat amongst the higher echelons of English
literature, but with her latest venture, I don't think she has lost
anything at all.
As
writers, we put our energy into characters then plot, or plot then
characters and good narrative, all good skills in their own right.
The very first thing I learned about writing, and I think that was in
primary school, was description. Description is a powerful tool.
Description is the portal that will take the reader into the writer's
world.
Hardy
and Dickens were masters of description, and JKR too
.
Me?
Like many others, I'm working on it. 
