We Don't Need To Know How Many Words You Wrote Today. Really.

I could—and possibly should—just leave the subject line of this post to stand for itself, because it's self-explanatory. That would make for a rather boring entry, however; so here's why I think it happens, and why writers should really, really resist the urge to inform the world how many words they've managed to get down on paper in a given span of time.

Writing is an intensely interesting—nay, fascinating—occupation to the writer, focused as he or she is on getting those words down on paper; wrestling with character, plot, setting, and description; watching as the words mount up, take shape, coalesce, and eventually form a whole which will, it's to be hoped, find a home in print and delight readers. Unfortunately, writing is also one of the most intensely boring things it's possible to do with one's time, involving as it does shutting out the rest of the world and sitting in front of a computer for hours on end, with nothing to show for it day after day other than a Word file which keeps increasing in size. In days gone by one could point to a rapidly-filling notebook, or a satisfyingly thick sheaf of papers; clicking on 'word count' before saving the file isn't quite as tangible or satisfactory an equivalent.

Thus it is, I think, that many writers—upon checking the day's word count—like to post the result for all to see, as if in validation: 'Look, I did accomplish something!' When I see these posts sprouting all over my Facebook wall—and as I have a lot of writer friends, they appear with monotonous regularity—I think 'Why?' I have friends who are teachers, principals, nurses, accountants, directors, waitresses, office workers; friends who work in sales, advertising, and PR; and none of them seem compelled to share the details of their working life in quite the same way writers do. Principals don't say how many in-school suspensions they handed out today; nurses don't inform us how many pills they dispensed; directors don't tell how many feet of film they managed to shoot; accountants don't tot up and then post how much in taxes they saved their clients. They know what they did, during the course of their daily round; they simply don't seem to feel the need to share it the way writers do.

It could be argued that for most people who write, writing isn't their full-time occupation; it's not a hobby, not exactly, but it isn't what they do to put food on the table. This is an even greater reason to not over-share. It's bad enough telling me how many words you got down on paper when that's what you do for a living; somehow it's worse when you're telling me how many words you wrote during your spare time. Would you be telling us how many rows of knitting you managed to finish after you'd eaten supper and cleared up the dishes? I doubt it.

The truth is, only your mother and your editor care how many words you wrote during the day; and I hate to be the one who tells you this, but your mother is lying. (She's the one who told you your first-grade paintings were wonderful, remember? Unless you grew up to be Tom Thomson or Emily Carr, she was lying then too.) And your editor only cares if those 3000 words you wrote today would make Nabokov weep in joy and admiration. Odds are good that they wouldn't. Because whenever one of those 'I wrote xxx words today' posts crops up, I know that the writer is talking about raw text in a file; there's probably been little polishing, or editing, so anywhere from 25% on up of those words will not see the light of day, and what's left may end up in radically different form by the time the work is published. Yes, good for you, 3000 words in a day is great; but let me know when those 3000 words are actually publishable, and I'll be more impressed.

It bears saying here: quantity does not equal quality. I'd be more impressed if that 'I wrote 3000 words today' post was followed up by one reading 'I chopped 500, my editor chopped a further 800, I rewrote 1200, and then realised that a key piece of dialogue had to be moved to earlier in the story to help it make sense.'

And I beseech you, in the bowels of the Lord, to not invoke any sort of Muse when talking about your writing. It sounds mildly twee at best, pretentious and pompous at worst, particularly when most writers aren't trying to do very much more than tell a decent story in a way that makes readers want to keep turning the page. Invoking the Muse for this process—particularly when self-aggrandisement, of the worst 'Look at me, I'm doing Important Work here!' sort lies millimeters below the surface—is rather like someone preparing Kraft Dinner and invoking the spirit of Escoffier while doing so. Whenever someone talks about being inspired by his or her Muse, I think of the Julian and Sandy skit from the BBC radio series Round the Horne in which they're running a film company called Bona Prods, and talking to Kenneth Horne about their latest production, a Biblical epic based on the story of Samson and Delilah. As Horne listens, Sandy encourages Julian to tell them about his idea for the screenplay: 'He's about to create. Look at his features; they're tortured. He's getting all worked up. Look, the Muse—the Muse is fluttering about, looking for a place to perch. There she is! Go it, girl! She's lighted on his shoulder!'

Whatever you write during the course of the day is between you and your computer. It may never see the light of day; if it does, it may bear little relation to those words you tallied up and broadcast so loudly weeks, months, or years earlier. By all means enjoy your writing, be proud of it, and feel free to let the world know when and where your words can be read. Until then, however, how many words you've written in a day is something best kept between you and your computer. And your editor, perhaps. But not your Mom. Trust me; she doesn't really want to know.

Editing Made Ridiculously Simple (Part Two)

The second part of my article discussing the ins and outs of editing, which originally appeared on Simon Marshall-Jones's Ramblings of a Tattooed Head blog. If you've ever wondered what the difference between substantive and line editing is, or what precisely a copy editor is looking for, or what an editor does (and doesn't) want to see at final proof stage, this is the article for you.

When we last saw editor Ellen Hartwell-Jones, the deadline for submissions to her anthology The Colossal Book of Fantastic Vampire Cat Stories had passed, and she had made her final selection of stories to be included. Ellen’s name will be on the cover of the book, preceded by “Edited by”; it’s her vision that has shaped the anthology, and the stories she’s chosen are the ones that best fit what she sees the finished work being as a whole. However, the fact that she’s accepted these stories doesn’t mean that her work is now done; far from it. The real work—the actual nuts and bolts of editing—is about to start.

There are three different types of editing: substantive, copy, and line. To make matters more difficult, there is considerable overlap between copy editing and line editing, and between line editing and proofreading. Ellen, as editor of the anthology, will do the substantive editing; depending on the publisher, she might do the copy and line editing as well, or these jobs could be performed by one or two other people. For the purposes of this article, I’ll assume that Ellen is doing all three.

First comes the substantive editing, which is where the editor works most closely with the author. As the phrase implies, substantive editing is the process whereby an editor goes through a submitted/accepted work and suggests potentially substantial changes, which might affect the structure, plot, characters, or tone of the story. This is where things can—possibly—get fraught, depending on how protective the author feels about her deathless prose. The writer has, at this point, completed her story; it is, she thinks, the best it can possibly be, and now someone is asking questions, or suggesting that something needs to be added or taken away or changed, or that this character’s actions need a bit more explaining, or that such-and-such an event needs to be moved backward or forward in the story.

It can be frustrating and/or annoying at this stage of the game: after all, if you’d thought that anything needed changing you’d have done it yourself, right? Well, not necessarily. As the writer, you’re sometimes too close to the story you’ve laboured over to see it clearly and objectively. There’s also the fact that you’re privy to all your own thought processes, so you know why you wrote this scene in this way, why a certain character acts the way he does, why a particular event occurs at that point in the story. You have all the connections in your head, and it all makes perfect sense. The trouble is that sometimes these connections don’t make it from your head onto the printed page. It’s perfectly obvious to you, because you know what you were thinking when you wrote the story. The reader doesn’t; he can only go by what’s down there on the page. He’s not privy to all the thoughts in your head, which is why substantive editing can be a real boon to a writer. The editor, as an objective third party standing in for the story’s eventual readers, can ask for clarification, suggest changes, deepen the characterisation. This isn’t to say that every suggestion an editor makes will be correct and needs to be immediately adapted, but a receptive writer will listen, and consider.

What happens if you don’t want to listen or consider; what if you think that your story is perfect as it stands? Good luck! No one’s saying you shouldn’t argue your corner; if you disagree with a proposed change, then by all means mount a defence. If the editor feels strongly that you don’t have a case, however, or if she’s presented a compelling argument for change and you won’t listen, then you might very well find your story being rejected rather than accepted, and could well end up on the editor’s private mental list of authors she doesn’t want to work with again.

Do editors have such lists? Not all of them, probably, and not formally; there’s no official blacklist of names which editors circulate amongst themselves. Still, the world of genre fiction is a relatively small one, and there’s ample opportunity for people to discuss these things. If an editor has worked with a writer who proved particularly difficult, to the point where the sight of another e-mail from that author makes the editor reach for the Advil even before she reads the message, then odds are the editor won’t want to repeat the experience. And the old adage is true: your reputation does precede you. Remember what I said in the first part of this article, about getting your story accepted being like a hurdles race, and not putting more hurdles in front of yourself than is necessary? If you, as a writer, have established a pattern of being abusive, difficult, or insulting, then up goes another hurdle which might well decrease your chances of being invited to submit to projects. Editors are only human, and like most humans they prefer to keep their contact with people who might cause unpleasantness in their lives to a minimum.

Now that the substantive edits have been discussed, and made where appropriate, Ellen Hartwell-Jones moves on to the copy and/or line editing. This is where your story is read through again, this time with an eye to correcting mistakes, inconsistencies, and anachronisms (JFK is referred to as having been assassinated in 1964; a character’s eyes are blue on page three and brown on page eleven; someone in a story set in 1974 mentions seeing the movie Star Wars); terminology (ensuring you’ve used the correct terms in referring to a specific field or activity); and timelines (making sure the dates mentioned in the course of the story add up, something not done in the Sherlock Holmes novel The Sign of the Four, in which Mary Morstan visits Baker Street on a September afternoon and produces a letter dated 7 July, which she says she has received in the post that day).

The next stage—although it’s often part and parcel of copy editing—is line editing. This is where our editor will be looking to ensure that the text flows properly, so she’ll be looking at sentence structure, proper use of grammar and punctuation, and such things as words or phrases or other stylistic tics of the author that are used too often (three paragraphs in a row beginning “And so he . . .”, a word repeated two or three times in the space of a single sentence, overuse of a piece of punctuation such as a semi-colon). This is also where she corrects any typos or spelling errors, and makes the whole thing conform to house style; that is, the style adopted by a publisher as regards grammar, typography, spelling, and other items.

House style isn’t always something authors can anticipate. A British or Canadian writer will write colour or neighbour or centre, and a publisher whose house style uses American spelling will change these to color and neighbor and center; similarly, an American writer who describes a car’s tires will find a British publisher changing that to tyres. If you use a serial, or Oxford, comma, when you write (“We went dining, dancing, and then to the beach to listen to the surf”) and the publisher doesn’t, then expect the line to read “We went dining, dancing and then to the beach to listen to the surf” when your story comes out. Some publishers use em dashes—like so—while others use them — thusly — with a space either side. Some use single quotes around dialogue, others use double quotes. House style is a fact of life, and there’s nothing you as a writer can do except go along with it (unless altering something in your text to conform to house style will ruin a vital plot point: if the solution of your mystery story hinges on the word “kerb” being spelled in the British style, then you’ll have to explain why it can’t be spelled “curb”, even though that’s the American publisher’s house spelling).

As I said, house style can’t always be anticipated; but what about all the other things turned up in copy and line editing? The fact that you wrote “just desserts” instead of “just deserts”; that your story, set in the future, mentions the American presidential election of 2014, even though the fixed four-year election cycle in the States means there’ll be presidential elections in 2012 and 2016, not 2014; that the hero walks across the room and opens the widow, not the window; that you write of a river being “dissected” by a bridge, rather than “bisected”; that you’ve established your vampire villain can’t tolerate silver, yet at the end of the book the hero is given a silver ring taken off the vampire’s hand, as a souvenir of the case; that you have the sun rising in the west? Yes, the editor spotted all these (well, no, she didn’t; the first four are all examples I can recall offhand that weren’t picked up in editing, and made it through to the published version; the last two were picked up prior to seeing print), and yes, that’s one of the reasons she’s there. It’s one of the most compelling arguments against publishing houses getting rid of editors, and against “editors” who do little more than compile an anthology, with no real skill or ability to edit in any meaningful sense (if an editor makes no edits whatsoever to your story, merely bangs it into a text file and sends it back to you to proof, ask yourself if your story was really that good that no changes needed to be made to it. If you’re honest with yourself, the answer will be “No”).

But—and this is a big “but”—it’s really up to the writer to go through his story and clear this up before it gets to an editor. You’ve had your story idea, you’ve written the tale, gone through it again to make sure it hangs together, and then wham, off it goes to an editor. But it’s to be hoped that you, as the author, did more than that before you printed it and put it in an envelope, or (more likely these days) attached it to an e-mail and sent it off. Few things make an editor’s heart sink faster than reading a submission chock-full of misspelled words, poor grammar, and erratic punctuation. If you didn’t care enough to fix all this before you sent it, then why should the editor? As an author, part of your job is to make sure that your finished story is as good as it can possibly be. Go through it as many times as it takes, getting rid of repeated words, fixing the grammar and punctuation, brushing it up and smoothing it off. While spellcheckers are fine after a fashion, they won’t tell you if it should be “complement” when you’ve typed “compliment”, or that you’ve used “there” instead of “their”. If you know that your grammar is a bit shaky or your spelling not up to par, or don’t know where to use a colon instead of a semi-colon, then get someone else who knows what they’re doing to read it through before you send your story off. And tell them to be honest, and critical. Nice as it is to pass your story off to someone to read and get a short but sweet “Great story, loved it!” back as a reply, that isn’t terribly helpful when it comes to polishing your work and making sure you’ve got as many of the kinks and errors out of it as possible.

Last, but certainly not least, comes the proofreading. This can, as I said, sometimes be combined by the editor with the job of line editing, although whereas line editors are also looking to change word order, syntax, grammar, and punctuation where necessary, the proofreader is looking almost strictly for misspellings, typographical errors, and missing words. By the time the proofreader gets to the text it has been set into the format in which it will ultimately appear, so correcting obvious mistakes are about the only alterations anyone wants at this stage, as extensive changes might throw out formatting or pagination. It’s for this reason that when Ellen Hartwell-Jones sends you the final page proofs of your story to read through, she does not want to see them come back with rewrites, additions, or deletions. The time for rewriting or editing your story has come and gone; she wants to know if you spotted any mistakes.

By this stage you will probably have been asked for a biographical note, a story note, or something combining the two. If you’re not sure what’s wanted, then ask. If the word count isn’t specified (your definition of “short” or “brief” may not agree with the editor’s), then make sure you establish an upper limit before you write your 2,000 word essay detailing the story’s background, genesis, development, and dénouement. This should go without saying, but make sure that if you comment on the story, you don’t put any spoilers in the note (prefacing such comments with a big bold SPOILER ALERT is generally frowned upon). These notes often precede the story, and no one will thank you for giving away a huge plot twist or key point in advance. Even if you know the note will be going after the story, or in a separate section at the back, spoilers are best avoided.

Which brings us—almost—to the end of the process, at least as far as writers are concerned; now it’s a question of sitting back and waiting until the finished book is available. One point of basic etiquette to remember, throughout the process, is to try to reply to editor’s e-mails as quickly and accurately as possible. Remember that she’s dealing with two-dozen or more other writers too, plus juggling the demands and queries of the publisher, any other editors and/or proofreaders, and possibly dealing with the cover art as well. The less chasing around and follow-up she has to do, the easier the entire process is for everyone.

When The Colossal Book of Fantastic Vampire Cat Stories is at last published, you might be asked to take part in some publicity for it, if circumstances allow. Some writers like to take a hands-off approach to publicising their work, preferring to let others do the job of marketing and promoting, but if you’re able to take part in a launch or signing or reading somewhere it’s very much appreciated, and usually a lot of fun. If nothing else, you get to meet with a group of other writers, and complain, like Edward Gorey’s Mr. Earbrass, about the unspeakable horrors of the literary life.

And so we take our leave of Ellen Hartwell-Jones, admiring the latest addition to her bookshelf, and wondering what her next project is going to be. Perhaps she already knows, and is drawing up a list of names of writers she’d like to invite to submit to it. If you’re fortunate enough to be on it, I hope my little guide helps you to clear away some of the hurdles. Good luck!

Okay, no more of that 'tied' nonsense

And here we are, with tonight's NHL standings showing the Canucks firmly on top of the entire league by two points, and still with at least a game in hand on the three teams right behind them. As someone who hasn't been off the Canucks bandwagon since 1970, all I can say is that however long it lasts, it's a helluva ride.

We're Number One!

As of right now, the Vancouver Canucks are number one overall in the NHL. I wanted to capture the moment. . . .

Editing Made Ridiculously Simple (Part One)

I wrote the following post for Simon Marshall-Jones's Ramblings of a Tattooed Head blog, to try to explain the editing process to those who might not be entirely clear as to what goes on and why. Part Two of the post will follow in the next week.

When Simon suggested that I write a guest blog entry, I wasn’t sure quite what he wanted. I could, I said, write from a writer’s perspective; but I’d be equally at home writing as an editor. Simon immediately said that he thought something from an editor’s perspective would be just the ticket: 'I think a piece from someone on the other side of the table, so to speak, would be a great idea. I've concentrated so far on writers, but editors need their say as well.' So there you have it. If you enjoy what follows, then I’ll happily take the credit; if you don’t, it’s all Simon’s fault.

To tell you the truth, I’m rather pleased not to have to whitter on about writing. It’s a very personal and internal thing, writing, immensely interesting to the person doing it, but considerably less so to almost everyone else. You know how much blood you’ve shed getting those 739 perfect words down on paper in a given day, but anyone watching would merely have seen someone staring at a computer screen, furious bursts of tapping alternating with the dull click of the backspace key being deployed, heartfelt sighs, cursing, long periods of inactivity, the consumption of innumerable cups of coffee/tea/beer/whisky/water (delete where applicable), and the single sharp tap which indicates that a whole block of text has been deleted.

Editing, though: well, that’s a whole different kettle of fish (in some respects; the staring at a computer screen, occasional furious bursts of tapping, sighs, cursing, and consumption of liquids is about the same). First of all, the words editor (noun) and edit (verb) are often used very broadly, when in fact not all editors do the same thing, and there are different types of editing. Today I’m going to talk about the editor whose name is on the cover of the book; for the purposes of this piece I’m going to go with an anthology called The Colossal Book of Fantastic Vampire Cat Stories, edited by Ellen Hartwell-Jones, although a lot of comments will apply to magazines and their editors as well. The person whose name on the cover is preceded by the words 'Edited by' is the person whose vision shaped the anthology: she developed the guidelines (possibly with some input from the publisher); decided whether the anthology was open to general submissions or was by invitation only; invited those authors she wanted contributions from (in the latter case); read every submitted story; and, finally, decided which stories will make it into the finished anthology. Her work goes beyond all this—in some cases far beyond—but for today I’m going to limit myself to what I’ve detailed above.

The guidelines are—or should be—fairly straightforward, with the editor explaining exactly what type of story she’s looking for, and often what she’s not ('No zombies'). If the editor doesn’t want explicit sex or violence, this is where she’ll say so. Word count will be mentioned ('2,000 to 6,000 words' or 'up to 10,000 words'), as will payment details, the reading period or final deadline for submissions, what format the manuscript should be in, whether electronic submissions are okay or she’d prefer paper manuscripts sent by snail-mail, and sometimes what the response time is expected to be. If this is a sequel or follow-on to a previously published anthology—perhaps this is The Second Colossal Book of Fantastic Vampire Cat Stories—the editor might suggest you read the first volume, to get a good idea of just what sort of stories she’s looking for.

Now, the following piece of advice might sound as if it should be filed under 'B' for Bleeding Obvious, but here goes. Read the guidelines carefully and in full. Then read them again, and a third time for good measure. This ensures that you might well find the answer to a question you had after the first read-through, and that you know exactly what the editor is looking for, how it’s to be presented, and by what date (of course, if you still have a question, or need clarification about something, then by all means ask: better to do so at the beginning of the process than at the end). Unless you’ve received permission from the editor to, say, exceed the word limit, or get an extension to the deadline, or send your manuscript electronically when she specified snail-mail, then it’s simple: follow the guidelines.

Think of the process of getting your story accepted as a hurdles race. From the outset, there are a few hurdles in your way: how good is your story? how much competition do you have? how closely does your story fit with the guidelines? Every time you deviate from the guidelines, you’re needlessly putting another hurdle in your path, and potentially decreasing your chances. Submissions open on June the 1^st? Don’t send your story on May 20^th. Guidelines specify Times New Roman? Don’t use Arial. Words that are to be italicised in the final text should be underlined? Wean yourself away from Ctrl+I. Don’t know what Standard Manuscript Format is? Look it up.

I’m not saying that an editor will reject your story unread because it’s in the wrong font, or you’ve used italics when she’s specified underlining instead; but she wouldn’t be human if she didn’t think 'What a maroon', or some variant thereof, and wonder just how closely you read the guidelines, or how well you grasped them, and these thoughts won’t reflect well on you. And in the case of sending the story before the submission window opens, the editor won’t think 'Wow, he’s really eager, bet it’s a great story, I have to read it'; she’ll be thinking 'The idiot couldn’t even pay attention to a simple thing like when to send in the story' at the same time that she reaches for the Delete key.

On to who gets to submit. Open submissions are much loved by writers, for obvious reasons—everyone who wants to submit can give it their best shot, and has a chance—and not so greatly loved by editors, also for obvious reasons (everyone who wants to submit, can). Depending on any number of factors, an open submission policy can result in hundreds of stories flooding across an editor’s desk; and while it does mean that an unknown, or little-known, writer has a chance of cracking the Table of Contents of a major anthology, it also means that the editor will inevitably have to wade through dozens upon dozens of stories which are poorly written, or unsuitable, or both. It’s little wonder, then, that many editors opt to go the invite only route, limiting potential contributors to writers the editor knows, or whose work she knows, or who come highly recommended. It means that the editor can be more or less assured that the submissions she gets will be of a fairly high calibre, and also that she has an idea of who she’s going to be dealing with.

This does pop the lid open on a can of worms, the one that goes something like 'It’s a closed shop, it’s not what you know it’s who you know, it’s always the same people who get invited, how’s a newbie writer to get a foot in the door?' It’s true that an invite-only anthology is something of a closed shop, and that established writers whom the editor knows, whose work she likes, and with whom she’s worked well in the past, are likely going to be invited to submit. However, no editor can, or wants to, depend on the same small group of people time after time, and is usually keeping her eyes and ears open, looking for good new talent, or listening to word of mouth from people she trusts. If your writing is good, and you’re getting yourself published and your name known, then it’s safe to say that you will eventually get your foot in the door.

This is where magazines—whether physical or on-line—come into play. Magazines need to fill pages, and need to do this over and over again, which is why they encourage submissions from anyone who cares to send a story. As a stepping-stone to book publication, they’re almost always an essential first step, a way of getting your name out there in the first place. However, many magazines are looking for a very specific type of fiction, and it’s important to ensure that you know what they want. A magazine looking specifically for horror, for example—look, it says horror, there in the guidelines!—could be looking for horror as exemplified by James Herbert in Rats; in which case your delicate Victorian-set tale of psychological horror written as an homage to James (Henry, not M.R.) is likely to be rejected. I mentioned earlier the occasional request, by an anthology editor, that prospective authors look back at previous anthologies in the series (where applicable) to see what she’s looking for. This goes double in spades for magazines. When the guidelines suggest that authors not familiar with the magazine buy a copy or two, it’s not just because someone wants to shift a few back issues taking up space in the warehouse; they really are trying to do you a favour, so that you don’t waste their time (or yours). Hands up, everyone who thinks they know what sort of story Weird Tales is looking for; and keep your hands up if you’ve read an issue of the magazine since the current fiction editor, Ann VanderMeer, took over early in 2007.

So now the deadline for submissions has come and gone, and Ellen Hartwell-Jones is sitting with a pile of stories to consider. She’s probably been reading submissions as they come in, and has already informed some authors that their story isn’t suitable. Whether the work in question is an anthology or a magazine, the editor doesn’t have to go into detailed explanations as to why your story isn’t being accepted, and she certainly doesn’t have to critique your work; if you want a thorough critiquing of a story you’ve written, join a writers’ group (guaranteed way to annoy an editor: upon receiving a rejection notice, immediately contact her and ask if she has any suggestions as to how your story could be made better/more suitable/more saleable. If the editor thinks there’s something salvageable there, at least for the project she’s working on, she’ll say that upfront). There are any number of reasons why a story doesn’t get accepted, even leaving aside those works that simply aren’t very good, or aren’t at all what the editor is looking for. In the case of Ellen, looking for fantastic vampire cat stories, it could be that you’ve written a story in the classic vein of M. R. James, set in England between the Wars, and she’s inclining more towards contemporary tales, slightly edgier or more modern in terms of attitude or setting (or that’s the way the anthology is turning out), and your story will be out of place. You could have tipped more into fey whimsy than she’d like; if all the other tales selected are fairly hard-hitting, yours won’t fit. Maybe you wrote an absolutely kick-ass fantastic vampire cat story featuring time travel, but unfortunately for you someone else wrote a slightly more kick-ass fantastic vampire cat story featuring time travel. Space is at a premium in anthologies, and most editors are wary of taking two stories that are too similar. The space issue also means that the longer your submission is, the better it’s going to have to be. If an editor has 10,000 words left to fill, and it’s a choice between your 10,000 word tale and two 5,000 word tales of the same calibre, your story is going to be a tougher sell.

And now, sadly, we must take our leave of Ellen Hartwell-Jones, as she sits and considers the stories she has assembled for The Colossal Book of Fantastic Vampire Cat Stories. Her work is not yet over, not by a long chalk; there’s a heap of editing still to be done. But that will feature in another post; for now we’ll bid her farewell, as she raises a glass of the tipple of her choice, and perhaps sighs, just a little, as she thinks about what lies ahead.

The Memory Pool

The ghost story world has always had more than its fair share of unknown—or barely remembered—authors; writers whose work in the genre was scattered through various magazines, or whose one or two collections had fallen out of print and were difficult, or expensive, or both, to find. From the early 1970s onwards editors such as Hugh Lamb, Richard Dalby, Mike Ashley, Jack Adrian, and Michel Parry went some way towards resurrecting the names of many of these authors, either through anthologies or through single-author collections (notably the short lived Equation Chillers series), and in the 1990s small presses such as Ghost Story Press, Tartarus, Ash-Tree, and others began reprinting scarce collections, and putting together 'complete' editions of an author's scattered works.

There are, of course, authors who have yet to be reprinted, in some cases because their work isn't very good (there's a reason some of these people have been forgotten), or because the authors in question weren't very prolific within the ghost story field (no one will be doing a 'complete' weird tales of Perceval Landon, because three stories do not a book make). However, a few authors have fallen through the net, one of whom is Thomas St. John Bartlett (1875–1909), whose sole collection, the posthumously published The Memory Pool and Others (Chatto & Windus, 1917), saw almost its entire run destroyed when the warehouse holding the book was destroyed during the last German airship raid of London during World War One, in June 1917. Bartlett languished in obscurity until Hugh Lamb resurrected him in 1972, but the lack of a 'complete' edition of his ghost stories has meant that Bartlett's reputation, never high to begin with, has remained below the radar of all but the most devoted aficionados of the weird tale.

When Glen Hirshberg and Pete Atkins approached me, earlier this year, with the astounding news that the rest of Bartlett's 'The Memory Pool' (previously only existing in the form of a fragment) had been found, I was thrilled; when they asked me to write the introduction to the first complete publication of the story, I was honoured and delighted. The result is a handsome booklet published by Earthling Publications as The Rolling Darkness Revue 2009—Bartlett: A Centenary Symposium, containing not only Bartlett's complete story (and my introduction to it), and bio/bibliographical information by Mike Ashley, E. F. Bleiler, and Gary Hoppenstand, but two further stories ('Intricate Green Figurines' by Pete, and 'The Nimble Men' by Glen) which take their cue from Bartlett's writing. It's to be hoped that some enterprising small press is able to prevail on the Bartlett estate to make not only the stories contained in The Memory Pool available to a new generation, but to release any unpublished stories it may hold. In the meantime, anyone wanting to sample Bartlett's work, and who doesn't have one of the handful of anthologies containing one of his stories, has a treat in store in this complete version of 'The Memory Pool'. It's long been a minor mystery as to why the publisher chose to title Bartlett's one collection after a story fragment; but as I say in my introduction, the complete story shows the author breaking new, fresh ground, with a confidence and maturity that makes it all the more tragic that his life was cut short in so dramatic a fashion. The handsome chapbook is available through Glen Hirshberg's website, and it would make an excellent stocking stuffer for the ghost story enthusiast in your life.

Speaking of Christmas, I see that Turner Classic Movies has scheduled eighteen Sherlock Holmes films to run consecutively from 5.00 pm PDT on Christmas Day. 'Holmes for the Holidays' is doubtless running as a tie-in to the Robert Downey, Jr./Jude Law film Sherlock Holmes, which opens on 25 December, but whatever the reason for the scheduling, it's nice to think that a new audience might be introduced to the classic Holmes films of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Their two period adventures for Twentieth Century-Fox—1939's Hound of the Baskervilles and Adventures of Sherlock Holmes—kick off the programming, and eleven of the twelve Universal films (the only missing one is The Woman in Green) follow over the course of Boxing Day. Anyone who's read some of my earlier blog posts will know of my great fondness for these films, and I think it's safe to say that TCM will be playing softly in the background throughout at least some parts of Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

And still on a holiday note, let me say that at this time of year I thank goodness for online shopping. I became enamoured of mail-order shopping in 1997, when I had a three-month-old son and was living in a small town with, shall we say, limited shopping options. Tim is now twelve, and I'm a bit more mobile than I was in 1997, but the shopping options of Ashcroft have not increased in any meaningful way in the intervening years, and I've become a whole-hearted enthusiast of shopping electronically. The whole world is, quite literally, at my fingertips; so if you'll excuse me, I have to go and do some shopping. And I don't have to worry about finding a parking spot close to the door.

The Eagle Has Landed

Yes, I know, I've been very quiet here lately, and that's not like me at all, but the truth is that there really hasn't been a lot to say apart from 'Northwest Passages comes out soon, I'm really excited.' Deciding - probably correctly - that a series of posts on this theme would soon grow tiring, I resolved to wait until I had something slightly more interesting to say, and now I do: 'Northwest Passages has been published, I'm really excited.'

Actually, that's not quite true. Excited? Heck, I'm thrilled beyond words. I saw it first at Borderlands Books in San Francisco on 28 October, when I took part in a mass signing at the store prior to the World Fantasy Convention in San Jose that weekend (many thanks to Alan Beatts and Jude Feldman for their kind invite). I walked in the door of Borderlands and there it was: my book, on a table with other books. Real books, by real writers. I picked up a copy and grinned, and Christopher snapped this picture, of me holding my collection for the first time. That's me in the red jacket, with Jude Feldman. Up to that point I'd seen an ARC of the book, but this was the first time I'd seen and held a copy of the collection, and it was a wonderful moment. Perhaps there are authors for whom the release of a book elicits little more than 'Ho hum, a book, how nice,' but I'm not amongst their number, and hope never to be.

Northwest Passages was available in the Dealers' Room at World Fantasy, and is now available through varied sources, including the Prime Books website (which also offers the deluxe, leatherbound edition, which comes with a chapbook featuring my first ghost story, 'Dead Man's Pears'), Amazon and its affiliates in Canada and the U.K., Barnes & Noble, and Chapters/Indigo. I'm hoping to have a signing at the Chapters branch in Kamloops sometime in the New Year. I should also mention that anyone who'd like a signed and/or inscribed copy can obtain one through me, as I have stocks available; feel free to contact me for details.

World Fantasy in San Jose was tremendous fun; it was wonderful to spend time with good friends, and to know that I'll see many of them again at the World Horror Convention in Brighton in March 2010. Ash-Tree Press will have six - count 'em, six - books debuting between now and then, by authors who will be at the convention: Larry Connolly, Steve Duffy, Paul Finch, Gary McMahon, Lisa Tuttle, and Simon Kurt Unsworth. We're planning a special launch/signing affair in Brighton, and look forward to a grand event. If you're going to be at WHC, set aside Friday 29 March from 2.00 to 3.00 pm!

I'm reminded that tomorrow - 23 November - marks the 46th anniversary of the broadcast of the first episode of Doctor Who ('An Unearthly Child'). I've come fairly recently to DW, thanks to Tim's devotion to the show, but even so, the sound of THAT theme song - in any of its iterations - makes me smile. Here's the opening ten minutes of that first show; hang in until 1.40 to catch a first glimpse of the TARDIS. All credit to composer Ron Grainer, and to Delia Derbyshire, who was responsible for the electronic realisation of Grainer's theme.

I've already blogged about my love of the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes films (fourteen in all, made between 1939 and 1946). I've seen them so many times that I know great chunks of the dialogue by heart, and as soon as the remastered films were made available on DVD I bought the set; but that doesn't diminish my pleasure at hearing the news that Turner Classic Movies will, on 25 and 26 December, be broadcasting eighteen Sherlock Holmes films back to back, including thirteen of the fourteen Rathbone/Bruce films. The missing one is The Woman in Green, and that's understandable, as it's one of the weaker films in the series. However, Pursuit to Algiers is widely held to be the nadir of the Universal series - a view with which I concur - and Woman in Green does boast the undoubted pleasure of Henry Daniell's Professor Moriarty. In his autobiography, Rathbone said that Daniell was the best of the three actors (George Zucco and Lionel Atwill being the other two) who played Moriarty to his Holmes, and if you watch this encounter between the two actors you'll find it hard to disagree. Not canonical, perhaps, but when the result is this fine it's hard to quibble. From where I sit typing these words, I can glance to my right and see, in the hallway, a framed original poster from this film, which I bought largely because it featured Daniell (second from the bottom on the left). I think it's safe to say that, come Boxing Day, TCM will be playing softly in the background, as the game is afoot once more.

Last but not least, I'm going to try to update this blog each week, every Sunday evening PST, writing about whatever strikes my fancy. Feel free to comment! And Steve - it's now Monday morning. Time for WURK. . . .

Writing News

Things have been . . . busy here. Nothing unusual in that; but things are more than usually busy right now, and I'll be glad when the end of July comes and things stabilise. A bit. I hope. One of the July projects is working with a local teacher—the wonderful Debi Hamson—at a summer camp she's running; I'll be helping a group of children to write a book. I'm looking forward to it very much, and talked with Debi today about some of the details. We're both very excited about the possibilities. No, it won't be a ghost story. . . .

However, I have been able to do some writing, and am pleased to say that my story 'Flu Season' will be appearing in Subterranean Online, either late this year or early next. It's a subtly nasty story (I think), a bit different to what I usually write. Also appearing in Subterranean Online—in the Summer 2009 issue—is my review of John Harwood's The Séance. I thought that his first novel, 2005's The Ghost Writer, was excellent, and am pleased to say that his second novel more than fulfills the promise in his International Horror Guild Award-winning first book. I hope to have more reviews in SO; watch this space.

Another story, 'The Haunted House in Etobicoke', will be appearing in Exotic Gothic 3, edited by Danel Olson and published by Ash-Tree Press in fall 2009. It is, as the movies have it, 'based on a true story', a tale told me by my paternal grandmother about a reporter knocking on her door late in 1969, thinking that recent supernatural activities reported in the Toronto papers had taken place at my grandparents' house. They'd taken place—allegedly—at a house down the road, and when I visited my grandparents as a child I used to go and stand in front of the 'haunted' house, and wonder what secrets it concealed.

Yesterday—Canada Day (or Dominion Day, as it was known in my youth)—I received the news that my story 'Of the Origin of the Hound of the Baskervilles' will be appearing in Gaslight Grotesque, the sequel to last year's very well-received Gaslight Grimoire. The story was a good deal of fun to write, and I'm looking forward to this second volume of 'Dark Tales of Sherlock Holmes'.

Carry On Round the Horne with Hancock

Last Christmas we gave Tim an iPod, and due to technical difficulties which, quite frankly, I don't understand, Tim couldn't upload anything to the device through his own computer. As I'd given Christopher an iPod the Christmas before, and he had quite a lot of music and audio files on his own computer, he simply uploaded it all to Tim's, which was fine with everyone. However, not long after the New Year, Tim was scrolling through his iPod library and discovered something called Round the Horne: specifically, dozens of episodes of the BBC radio series from the 1960s, which Christopher had transferred, by the miracle of modern technology, from a number of cassette tapes to his iPod.

We knew Tim had discovered the shows because he was going about the house convulsed with laughter, listening to them over and over and repeating huge chunks of dialogue to us at every opportunity. It's not hard to see what appealed; even forty years on the shows are fresh and funny, full of witty dialogue, wonderful recurring characters, memorable catchphrases, and the sort of skilled playing by veteran actors (in the picture above we have, from left to right, Hugh Paddick, Kenneth Williams, Kenneth Horne, Betty Marsden, and BBC announcer Douglas Smith) that one associates with classic British comedy. Before long Tim could pick out who was who, replicate accents and voices, even sing along with close harmony group the Fraser Hayes Four (who provided a serious musical interlude on each show; if you see Tim at World Fantasy in San Jose, ask him to do 'Alexander's Ragtime Band'). It wasn't long before Christopher pointed out that if Tim liked Round the Horne (which he obviously did), he'd probably also enjoy Hancock's Half Hour, a number of episodes of which were also on his iPod. . . .

And thus it was that Tim discovered Tony Hancock (l), ably supported by both Kenneth Williams and Sid James (r). Round the Horne maintained first place in his affections; but he enjoyed the Hancock episodes as well, and sought out a few of the television shows courtesy of YouTube. Kenneth Williams remained his favourite actor, and various of his Round the Horne creations - Gruntfuttock, Julian, Rambling Syd, Dr. Chou-En Ginsburg, M.A. (failed) - were heard about the house at all hours, and at the drop of a hat.


One night last week, while Christopher was a school board meeting, I thought that Tim would probably enjoy watching the 2000 movie Cor, Blimey!. Although the thrust (ooh, Matron!) of the film is the relationship between Sid James and Barbara Windsor, stars of the cheeky( and much loved) Carry On comedy films, Kenneth Williams (superbly played by Adam Godley) is one of the main supporting characters, and I wondered what Tim would make of seeing Williams (and James, to an extent) played by others in a film. The movie opens at Pinewood Studios in 1964, as a young dresser arrives for her first day on the job. In the studio she stops in front of framed pictures of the real Williams and James, which then change into photographs of the actors playing them in the film. 'The actor playing Sid James looks more like him than the actor playing Kenneth Williams does' said Tim critically; but as soon as the actors playing Williams and James appeared, he was transfixed (James is played in the film by Geoffrey Hutchings). 'He sounds just like Sid James!' said Tim approvingly, of Hutchings, and he said the same of Godley as Kenneth Williams. He hasn't yet seen any of the Carry On films, but I have a feeling it's only a matter of time.

Tonight we watched Kenneth Williams: Fantabulosa!, a 2006 TV movie about Williams's life, largely drawn from his diaries (published posthumously). It stars Michael Sheen as Williams, and is by turns hilarious and horrifying, showing as does an immensely gifted but intensely conflicted man whose death (due to an overdose of barbituates) in 1988 was probably suicide (although a merciful coroner returned an open verdict). Perhaps the highlight of the movie, for Tim, was a scene which shows a recording of an episode of Round the Horne; the look on his face was priceless as he realised what it was, and saw Stephen Critchlow (as Kenneth Horne), Guy Henry (as Hugh Paddick), and Sheen launch into a 'Julian and Sandy' skit ('That's really from one of the episodes!' said Tim in a whisper; compare the picture of Sheen and Henry above with the picture of Paddick and Williams at the top of the piece). By the end of the film, though - which ends (apart from a brief coda) with the final words of the final entry of Williams's diary, written on the day he died: 'Oh, what's the bloody point?' - Tim was thoughtful. 'He was a lonely man, wasn't he?' he said after; then, 'If I had a time machine, I'd like to go back and meet Kenneth Williams.' I don't know whether Williams would be pleased or not to know that he has a fan in someone who was born in another country, eleven years after he (Williams) died; I'd like to think he would be. I expect we'll be hearing a lot more Round the Horne in these parts; I console myself with the thought that there are a lot worse things Tim could be listening to. . . .