Thursday, November 13, 2014

Number Thirteen Press Launches Inaugural Novella...

In case you hadn't noticed, Number Thirteen Press launches fully today with Of Blondes and Bullets by Michael Young.

More details at the website.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Creative Writing Courses - A Student Speaks

Another day, another criticism of creative writing courses. This time it is from a Nobel Prize judge, no less. And there's this. And then this. And this. And here I am, having just handed in my dissertation for a creative writing master’s degree. I was initially sceptical, but since I was being paid to do the course (lucky me) and since I planned on spending the year largely on writing anyway, I figured why not. And I got exactly what I hoped I might. I am a convert. However, the questions about creative writing courses remain, so let’s deal with them one by one.

Is it all just a big con, designed to allow writers to pad out their pay packet?
Well, yes about the pay packet, to a certain extent. I won’t argue that. Consider Hanif Kureishi, who regularly criticises the notion of teaching writing while collecting a pay packet (from the very establishment I attended) to do just that. Incomes from writing are decreasing year after year, and everybody has bills to pay. Offer me tenure to talk about writing and I’ll bite your hand off.

But can you teach writing?
Stop asking this question. It’s really stupid. Of course you can teach writing. Most of it is craft. I could paint your portrait now and it would be bollocks. I could study painting for 3 years and then paint you. It would still be rubbish and uninspired, but at a much higher standard because I would at least have some knowledge and experience of the skills involved. The same is true for any craft (writing, drawing, pottery, film making) used in the pursuit of what may well aspire to the status of art. The basic skills can be taught, practiced, criticised, practiced some more, upgraded. You cannot learn to be a genius, but you can learn to be competent and then add geniusness if you have it.

So, why didn’t all the old, good writers need creative writing courses?
This is the most frequent point people bring up. Problem is it’s just not true. Many great writers did take a course (um, Raymond Carver, anybody? Kazuo Ishiguro? Ian McEwan? Toni Morrison? Thomas Pynchon? There are many.) More importantly, this question ignores the fact that many old writers were taught by someone. Dig into any writer’s biography (Faulkner, Hemingway, whoever you want, really) and you find the same: people who criticised, edited, worked with the writer and helped them to improve. You know, taught them. Like you get on a course.

Because that’s what used to happen. Writers have always been guided by knowledgeable or more experienced literary types/writers. They have always been developed by agents and editors who could afford to invest a lot of time in a book or in the writer’s whole career. Years, even, if they thought the writer was talented enough, developing them to the point they were worthy of being published. This has always, always, always happened.

Until recently.

Now, fewer authors will take other writers under their wing because either a) they’re too busy on the promotional merry-go-round trying to earn a crust, what with incomes falling year after year, etc, and b) they might as well get paid to do it. On a creative writing course. Agents and editors, on the other hand, spend almost no time at all developing young writers because that’s the new economic reality. They can’t afford it. There are thousands of books to publish and millions of wannabe writers, so instead they just reject, reject, reject and wait for something already polished to come along.

Which will usually (or at least, often) be from somebody who has been on a creative writing course.

Basically, all writers have always studied creative writing from other people. Now it’s on a course, and the industry no longer does it in house. The model is different but the process is almost exactly the same. A creative writing course gives you exactly what all the old, good writers were given by other writers, agents and editors.

So can a creative writing course turn a shit writer into a great writer?
No. Of course not.
Yes, the institution will still take your money, because they have bills to pay.

To be a good writer, you still need talent. But talent must be developed. To develop as a writer, you must a) read, b) write, and c) receive informed feedback on your writing and learn from that feedback, with the help of a teacher. Whether the feedback comes from a knowledgeable person on a course or a knowledgeable person not on a course is not really important. Whether the teacher is a person or a book makes a difference, but both are possible.

So, can you do it yourself instead of paying all that money?
Well, yes. I’m sure you can. Same as you can learn rocket science by going to the library and studying really hard. It just takes longer, and it’s harder to make a living writing rubbish while you serve out your apprenticeship, the way many old pulp hacks did it.

Working without advice, by imitation of other writers, can take you to a certain level if you are critical enough and talented enough. Instead of a teacher, you can buy Stephen King’s On Writing, and maybe a few Chuck Wendig books as well, because he’s more fun. If you have people to give you quality feedback then you will improve further. Many people do this and reach a reasonable level of writing, from where an agent and then an editor will take you on and help you improve further. This is essentially the same as a creative writing course, without the skills of the tutor at teaching what he is paid to teach.

The truth is that a creative writing course is easier, quicker, and in the long term probably cheaper.

So, should I do a creative writing course?
If you want to be a published writer, then yes, unless you’d rather spend years doing it yourself and hoping to get lucky. Will the course be any good? I don’t know. Some of them are utter rubbish, I’m sure. But the main thing I learned on my course is that the course itself isn’t important. It’s all about the lecturers. I had lecturers who were very, very good but I heard about others on the course who I would not have been happy with and would have learned less under. All this is hard to predict. I was very happy with all my tutors, and one in particular who gave me exactly what I needed to take my writing to a much higher level. Other people will need different things, and they may not have gotten as much from the same lecturers. Bit of a lottery, really.

The most important things are still reading and writing, and books like King’s and Wendig’s can certainly help anyone. But if you are serious about being a writer, your writing is already at a reasonable but not quite publishable level, and you have the opportunity, then it is definitely a good idea.

And finally, have creative writing courses created a generation of nice, safe, samey literary figures all in the same mould as their lecturers but with less flare?
Fuck me, I don’t know. Probably. That’s a question for literary history students. I know that literary fiction in both the US and the UK has been pretty dull for the last 20 years, though thank god it shows signs of emerging from its slump. Whatever. If you’re a writer you are probably more inspired by what you read and your own imagination. And for god’s sake get some balls. The course didn’t change how or what I wanted to write, it just made me better at doing so. Write what you want to write regardless of what your lecturers like. Listen to them on anything else, but stick up for your own aspirations or you’ll only end up a bit shit anyway.

So you're saying that writers have always received the same advice and teaching only now it's on a creative writing course instead of not on a creative writing course, and that you can do it yourself by getting exactly the same advice and teaching from other people and books instead of on a course, if you want to spend more time and money or just can't currently do a course? And, further, that people who question creative writing courses just don't know shit about writing or the publishing industry or its history, or else they're hypocritical and/or self-deluded shits like Hanif Kureishi?
Yes. And yes.

Right, that's the creative writing question sorted for all time, then.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Burma Shave

Here in the UK we glimpse Burma Shave only through myths and legends, not unlike the fall of Troy or the story of Sisyphus.

Some nights my heart pounds like thunder
I don't know why it don't explode
'Cause everyone in this stinking town's
Got one foot in the grave
I'd rather take my chances
Out in Burma Shave
-Burma Shave
Tom Waits

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Fragments of Noir - Jack Vettriano

Fragments of Noir is an outstanding website. All round. No argument. This is a guy who really, really gets noir. Who understands noir on a really deep level. Right down to the beating black heart of it all.

One of my favourite things I've discovered through the site is the artist, Jack Vettriano. Wanna know why? Here, take a look.


Consumately stylish, overtly sexual with undertones of violence, loneliness, restrained passions and deep regret. He is like a fusion between Edward Hopper and the sort of classic pulp artist that these days only seems to find employment at Hard Case Crime. So many stories hinted at but left untold.

Fragments of Noir has plenty more Vettriano here.

While you can find out more about the artist here.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

QOTM: Kill Kill Faster Faster

You ain't stupid, man. You put out your hand, but then you pull it back. So you deny them. You deny them that. And then what do they have? They have nothing. They have fucking nothing, and you have your name.

My name is Joey One-Way.

What's yours?

-Kill Kill Faster Faster
Joel Rose

Monday, July 7, 2014

Ascenseur pour l'echafaud (Malle, 1958)

aka Elevator to the Gallows

Two men.
Two women.
Two murders.

And the most perfect noir soundtrack imaginable from Miles Davis:

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Ask the Dust - John Fante

(If you want to skip the pointless rant, the actual review is at the bottom.)

Here's the thing about John Fante's Ask the Dust:

In 1977, The Runaways released their second album, Queens of Noise. By the time I was old enough to start searching out decent music The Runaways had pretty much been forgotten. I eventually came across Joan Jett, of course, but with so much music to dig through, so much junk covering the good stuff, I never had time to seriously investigate her back catalogue. She released a few decent rock anthems, fair enough, good stuff, so did a lot of other people.

In 1977 I was one year old. It wasn't until last year I got around to digging up Joan Jett's sordid past and discovered a song from the album called Neon Angels on the Road to Ruin.


I mean, come on people. Do you see that title? The song simply cannot fail to be excellent with a title like that. But because I was a babe in arms at the time and the music fell out of fashion, I was left digging through thousands of hours of mostly tedious and overrated music before I even discovered that the song existed. Why have you wasted so much of my life by not telling me there's a song called Neon Angels on the Road to Ruin?* Why would you do that to me? There's so much shit I've had to wade through, so much money spent on the wrong thing, when practically my entire life there's been a song with that title, but no-one thought to tell me.


So that's why society is wrong. It is wrong and it is shit, and it is obviously unfair I've had to spend half my life without knowing that there was a song called Neon Angels on the Road to Ruin. Somebody should have told me when I was sixteen, so that I didn't have to waste the next couple of years believing that Oasis were actually quite good.

And that's how I feel about Ask the Dust by John Fante. It was published in 1939. It was a huge influence on Charles Bukowski. I never heard of it until this year. Why have I had to wade through hundreds of shitty recomendations when this work of obvious genius was sitting there all the time? Why does so much shit get thrust into our faces, making it so hard to fight through the crowd and find the works of momentous truth and beauty on the other side? Why does society throw Coldplay and the Stereophonics at me, Chris Brown and Miley Cyrus, instead of genuine artists of skill and passion, whether they're to my taste or not?


If you don't know about John Fante, and you haven't read Ask the Dust, then read it. Especially if you like, for instance, Bukowski. Or perhaps I could place it somewhere between Hemingway and Steinbeck, and it was quite possibly also an influence on the likes of Chandler and Goodis. Not everyone will love it, of course, there's still the matter of taste. But that doesn't stop it being brilliant and everybody should know about it. Everybody. When they are of age, tell your children. Don't force it on them. But for God's sake, at least let them know it's out there.**

*It's not the Best Song Title of All Time, of course, because that award has been retired and given in all perpetuity to Je Suis un Teenage Zombie de la Outer Space, Baby, by Les Prostiputes. But it's a good candidate for runner up.

**It's a semi-autobiographical novel about a deluded aspiring writer in LA, struggling to cope with both failure and limited success, filled with poverty and dreams and his love-hate-love-hate infatuation with a crazy waitress. It's frequently funny but also filled with moments of genuine despair and terror at the bare facts of life in depression era USA, and also at the existential crisis at the heart of the creative life which the protagonist naiively romanticises but which the novel examines in usparing, highly critical detail. File under: Essential.

Further reference:
Neon Angels on the Road to Ruin
When did mediocrity and banality become a good image for your children? Play from your fucking heart.
Stewart Lee: Talking Books
"The world of publishing is in crisis...No I haven't read it because I'm a forty year old man."