about

blog

books

horoscopes








www.flickr.com

this weblog is brought to you by the letters abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz  

extinction

Saturday, February 20, 2010

I’m blogging from sunny hobart where I’m writer-in-residence at the lovely kelly st cottage above salamanca place. Here until the 3rd march and putting the finishing touches, dare i say the piped icing and cachous, on the Piece of Cake. Really can’t wait to get it off my desk. Seriously. I have just about had it.

It’s great to be out of context for this end stretch, because it throws the voice and the landscape into sharp relief (the book, while not exactly set in the NT, is very outback-flavoured) and enables me to be more precise. It is worth asking, precise about what? Well i’m at the point where thematic insights seem to fall effortlessly into place, despite the apparent effort of the last two to three years. So now there is a lot of tidying up of distracting details and odd directions to be done. If a story is a map then this one has a few extraneous side-streets and tangential details and my job, at the moment, is to delete them. There is a malicious pleasure in this part of the work which nicely counteracts the pain of creative exhaustion. Die, redundant adjective, die!

I am also giving a couple of writing workshops while I’m down here and playing that essential part of the role of globetrotting author known as earning my keep. The workshops are already booked out, but you can see the details here.

Hobart’s pleasant and productive so far. I spent yesterday afternoon in the Maritime Museum, which is manned by dear old salts, and a good place to indulge the nautical fetish. Then the state Museum, which has an Antarctica exhibition on, which was absolutely riveting. I particularly liked the old provisions - some compressed meat powder wrapped up like soap - I didn’t take my camera in. the have lots of bits and pieces from shackleton’s trip, including a couple of his huskies.

I have noticed they seem to be inordinately fond of taxidermy here. Best not to sit still for too long in tasmania. The animal exhibits are wonderfully creepy. The stuffed devils next to the thylacine skeletons were a bit chilling, given their prospects. I remember the thylacine footage from last time I was here (over ten years ago now) and it’s heartbreaking… the neurotic pacing of a caged animal and the poignancy of the short loop of film. Really sets you thinking of all the species we have managed to boot off the planet. Interesting what it might mean to live in a state whose major icon is extinct. Probably makes you a bit morbid.

There’s an election on here, but you don’t really notice - it actually feels like a local council election. I don’t mean for that to sound patronising, since I come from an even smaller state, i mean territory. But the mood is pretty calm, here in bourgeois heaven at least.

On that note it's the markets this morning - going to hunt down some coffee now and hopefully harpoon some superthermal somethingorother to wear to Berlin - if only you could make warm coats out of redundant clauses.

PS the new issue of meanjin has some of my fiction in it - i'll be in two issues this year, so just subscribe.

Labels: , , ,

Share |

on releasing it into the wild

Friday, October 30, 2009

Avoiding the Piece of Cake today because it's so very nearly finished that I'm starting to get a little afraid of it. I'm really excited about this new book and keen to let it go. I'm also questioning it a lot now that it's getting too late to change things. That's bringing up all these issues about when to release my work into the wild.

I tend to hang onto things until the very last minute, until they are teetering on the edge of overworked. It's a perfectionist tendency which I find necessary, early drafts of everything I write being shite.

At some point you have to let it go, shite or not. I'm finding this a very different process with the second novel because I already have a publisher and I know I will have an editor (and I know much more about what that process will mean). So my publisher emailed me last week politely inquiring when I might have a new manuscript for them. I told them February/March.

I feel like I could work really hard and get the PoC iced in a fortnight, but I'm nervous. I need more time alone with it, in private, even if I just spend all morning moving one sentence back and forth. Some authors let their friends/relatives/peers read their drafts, but I prefer to hang onto my work until the very last minute. That was essential with the first book - you're competing for publishers' attention, so you want to polish the hell out of it. With this one I'm trying to cut myself some slack, but find that I can't drop my perfectionist habits.

This leads to another issue, which is thinking about the book as a finished, published entity. Writing the first book I had the luxury of obscurity (no, I don't want it back, thanks). In some ways I thought of TDA as unpublishable (it is a love story between two older women after all) and that allowed me to write the book that wanted to be written, rather than the book that I thought I wanted to write.

It's important to make the work exist properly before you let other opinions crowd in. These opinions and ideas include the imaginary ones that I have running through my head, the inner critical voices. And then there's thinking about the book as a product. How will I be marketing this? Worrying about how you're going to talk about your writing, while you're writing, has advantages and disadvantages. (This follows on from my last post and an email conversation I've been having with genevieve tucker)

Bad: it distracts you from telling the story; it can lead to a tendency to become mediocre in an effort to make yourself palatable to imagined tastes.

Good: it's a form of criticism - a way of "making every word stand trial" as someone famous (I forget who) said; you will have to do it down the track anyway so you should practice while you still have a passion for the book in question.

Confession: while I was writing TDA that inner voice came in the form of fantasy interviews, mostly conducted while swimming laps. This was partly my Ambitious Streak fantasising about its future life as Famous Author, but also a way for my brain to hold ideas up to the light of another person's POV without the embarrassment of actually letting someone read my drafts. If I can't explain it or justify it to Imaginary Interviewer, then it probably shouldn't be there.

But if I can explain it, why am I writing a novel about it?

The fantasy interviews have disappeared this time around. That's partly because I have more experience with real interviewers, who don't tend to ask so many tough questions about the nuts and bolts. Editors do. After that it only happens in reviews, and you can't answer those (unless you know the person who runs the paper they're in).

It's all a bit confusing. Maybe in an ideal world i wouldn't have to do the travelling-salesman bit. But it's good for the work in some ways, and part of the same skill set. You have to get into character to write fiction (or I do - hence the usual description of my job as "having a benign form of schizophrenia"). Then you have to get into character to market it.

Is the character I'll be in to flog the PoC the same person who's been writing it? The same person who's been touting TDA around the country? Probably not. Different book, different audience - though you'd hope the people who read the first would want to read the second. But what if I alienate them with this one? Gah! Heck! Splutter!

I am trying to push all of these troublesome thoughts out of my head and just finish the damn book as i see fit. But the closer I get to the end of it, the closer I get to the scary (and joyful) moment of release. Which also gets me closer to bipolar mood disorder and divorce. Bonus!

Instead of (okay, as well as) panicking, I'm making a new zine. One thing I love about zines is that people tend to give you feedback on your work because it's not technically "published." There's an understanding that you can still do something else with it - see zine-to-book authors like vanessa berry and tom cho.

The increasing respect for zines by mainstream publishing as the industry decentralises is great, but it also means that the wonderful tentative quality of zines is fading as they act more like publications and less like small experiments.

Mind you, that doesn't mean I think of zines as practice - just that they belong to a particular critical community. Even with zines I tend to rework until I know it's ready. I think I usually know when it's ready. I'm hoping this is something I will get better at with practice. Right now I'm still wondering if the PoC is almost ready, which means it definitely isn't. The trick is not to go past the point of being completely jack of it. But then you have to hate your work now and then - and I can remember who said that (I have graduated from total insanity, but am looking forward to the pastel shades).

Anyway the upshot of all this is that you can't read my book yet but you can order a zine by sending trade or five bucks or stamps to PO Box 3085 Alice Springs. No-one ever orders my zines through the mail, so you could be the first.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by jenjen at 3:37 PM
0 comments - - links to this post

Share |

EWF reader: Critical Gratitude

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

I just got my Emerging Writers Festival reader in the mail. hooray for writerly advice and emergentsia in-jokes! i'm reposting my piece from the reader below, with permission.

Critical Gratitude

"If you promote yourself, you will have no success."
- Lao Tzu

Your dream has come true. Your debut novel is in the shops, you've been invited to a few festivals to promote it, and it all feels… weird. Full and empty. Gratifying and humbling. Fun, and sometimes, kind of horrible.

I cut my teeth in punk, anti-capitalist movements and the zine world, where engaging with the mainstream economy is all but spat upon. Having my debut novel, The Diamond Anchor, published by an independent publisher (UQP) might be okay with the punks, but at times it has felt no different from selling out. (I should point out here that I officially sold my soul to Satan in 2007 when I had a short story published in a Murdoch tabloid. Satan gave me a thirty dollar book voucher in return. Another sweet deal in ozlit).

So there I am at the Sydney Writers Festival, first novel in hand, trying to have conversations with people who read, people who write, people who edit, and people who market books. The wharves are a flurry of cappucino froth and literature. There are queues for most of the events and tons of writers that I recognise wandering around. It's all very Sydney: glamorous, dazzling, intensely capitalist, and mostly a big performance. Someone must be making money here, though it doesn't appear to be me. I wonder if any of the authors actually are. The publicity people are easy to spot - they shop for their clothes instead of pulling them out of charity bins. After my panel I start feeling like a circus freak. Annie Jones hauling a laptop around the harbour, quivering behind her beard. I quiver behind my knitting for a while and then I have to leave.

After years of regarding myself as a burnt-out activist and seeing writing as a kind of activism - giving a voice to the dispossessed and other egotistical fantasies - I am disappointed to find I have become a travelling salesman. It's a bit of a headfuck. I'm lucky that I'm good at talking. I don't get stage-fright and I like attention. Many writers are not that way inclined. People who are good at writing books (and I hope to one day count myself among them) are not necessarily also good at selling them. Or, indeed, talking about them. And yet, if you don't have a media-friendly persona, the publishing world doesn't seem to want to know you. They are looking for an angle to distinguish you in the crush of new books and new writers, but you know yourself to be a complex individual who is made up of more than just angles. You have curves and straight lines and scribbly bits. On the upside, journalists will sometimes recast you as the mythical, romantic figure you have always suspected yourself to be. But the process of being marketed is deeply compromising and can actually feel like some kind of identity fraud.

Encountering your readers can be confronting enough. It's not the readers themselves, but rather the way those encounters are framed. Authors might be plonked on a panel with other authors from a similar ethnic background, for example. Regional authors are often doomed to speak about place. Marketers tick certain boxes and seeing your work jammed into a category and targeted at a certain demographic is unnerving. It challenges the way you think about your work. These challenges are almost certainly good for you, but you need a fairly robust ego to withstand them. And I'm not talking about a huge book tour or a big corporate publisher. I'm talking about an independent and a few festivals. A marketing department of one person who works damn hard, puts her heart into it, and doesn't get paid enough either.

With festivals, there's also a time lag. As an author, you are expected to be able to articulate what your intentions were when you wrote the book you are selling, which is likely to be something you came up with three or four years ago and have thought over so much you no longer care. You are asked to justify the choices you made, which is strange, because you work very intuitively, especially with a first book - you are literally making it up as you go along, finding out how you work. But then the world expects you to speak about it like you actually knew what you were doing. Fortunately, most people accept your bullshit. But don't start believing it yourself, because spin can be poison for the writing voice.

There's been a lot of talk about how compromising it can be to write and be an activist at the same time. It's okay to be a parent, partner, teacher, librarian, or dishpig (all intensely political roles, by the way), but as soon as your Wrights and Whites start chaining themselves to trees it's all over for the literary voice. Let's assume for a moment that this is true and not some right-wing conspiracy to kneecap public intellectuals. The idea is that the work suffers when you are aware of its political import, and I think that to an extent this is true. I'm a political animal and it's impossible for me not to think in terms of the point I might be making. But I try hard to push that aside while writing; to work on telling the story and make it stand only for itself, and think about symbols later. This is why ‘Flame Trees’ is a better song than ‘Working Class Man’.

But it's the politics of the work that gives it meaning for me. The stories that choose me feel necessary. I often write of disempowered, silenced or marginalised people. I come from a specific context; my work is refracted through panes of class, gender, race, geography, experience, and so on. I can't help but have intentions. Living in Alice Springs makes it impossible for me to forget the intense inequality we live with in 'the lucky country'. Challenging such hypocritical narratives is important to me.

***

While I'm at the Sydney Writer's Festival I'm reading Brigid Rooney's book, Literary Activists, which helps. She analyses several “politically engaged” writers and makes broader observations about the relationship between authors and politics. Rooney reframes the political integrity vs literary integrity debate in a non-polar way. It's far more complex than a straightforward opposition. Writing and activism inform and relate to one another. Political consciousness can influence your work without detracting from its authenticity. Perhaps it's not even activism that deadens the creative voice, but ideology, the antagonist of the creative idea. (Marketing, on the other hand, is fine with ideas. It simply channels them to people to whom they might appeal.)

Over scrabble and whiskey with a songwriter friend of mine the other week, we were talking about how being released/published or angling for sales changes you.
'Do you think you'll ever speak with your own voice again?'
'Probably not.'
Sigh. At least the experience of being on the circuit has opened the way for some interesting conversations about integrity.

But maybe I'm just being pre-post-modern here. What can integrity possibly mean when everyone is a product of their context? The writing voice is relative - we all see the world from somewhere specific. As writers of fiction, isn't it our job to transform that specific(ally imagined) experience into something universal? Hang on, why are the people who decide what “universal” means still a bunch of old white guys in suits?

Whose conversation is this anyway? I'm always aware of the access I have, that my whiteness affords me, that my literacy and decent housing afford me, that my media-savviness and access to technology afford me. I'm grateful for it, and conscious of trying to use that privilege, that opportunity, to do some good.

I don't think engaging with the public face of the book industry has to be a disempowering experience. For the most part, it's enlightening, challenging and even fun. But it has made me starkly aware of the intense capitalist mediation of the relationship between writers and readers. Capitalism is not the undisputed winner, but I don't think writers or readers are winning either. It's not all about selling books - we are, after all, trying to communicate here. Sadly, at big festivals it is hard to chat with readers. I say sadly, because that relationship is a crucial conversation, a rare treasure that feeds the work and inspires me to read and think more broadly. Sometimes it feels like change happens right there – in the process of talking about the story rather than in the story itself.

The industry isn't allergic to politics. It can even incorporate forms of activism. Organisations like PEN muster the political clout of authors to, among other things, put pressure on governments to release political writer-prisoners. And you need only look at the recent Productivity Commission report into parallel importation to see that authors (Winton, Flanagan, Carey among them) are not afraid to defend their industry. Imagine if such literary heavyweights battled to protect the labour rights of writers. We could see an end to the exploitation of emerging authors! I dream of a world in which we might one day read the ASA freelance rates without weeping.

There is lots of guff written about creative classes, creative industries, reframing a creative life within acceptable capitalist boundaries. 'Emerging' might better be called mainstreaming. And in terms of my holier-than-thou lefty ideals, it's probably a lot safer to stay outside of that world where I can keep up some delusion of separating myself from exploitation. Being published, especially as an 'emerging' (read 'probably doesn't have to be paid') writer, can often be a form of exploitation in itself. Writing might be a compulsion, an obsession, a cause. Publishing is a decision not to be taken lightly.

At the NT's wonderful Wordstorm festival in May 2009, I was on a panel with two author advocates and a small press publisher, discussing how to reach readers amidst the clamour of mainstream bookselling; how to make enough to keep small press and authors going. We pondered the relationship between readers and writers., only to have local poet Carmel Williams get up and point out that capitalism is not the only way to negotiate that relationship. Far from it. We as writers and readers should be inventing better ones. You're right, Carmel. We should be demanding them.

That's why we make zines and write blogs and tweet, or whatever the latest thing is. We're trying to communicate in a noisy world. If it's community you're looking for, it might be better not to go for publishing at all. Find somewhere a bit quieter where people have common interests and you're not asked to conform. (And hey, we all know underground notoriety is cooler than mainstream success).


***

After the book tour, you're back at the laptop, confronted with the gaping hole in reality that you are still desperate to fill. Your disproportionate level of self-belief has been rewarded, but you are still completely alone with the work. Though being published has opened more doors, you still don't have any money. If you haven't burned your author copies to keep warm, you can go and look at your first book on the shelf and smile at it. But it's just as likely you will frown and wonder how the hell you did it, and whether it's really worth attempting it again. The spotlight's few minutes of warmth can leave you feeling cold.

I'm still making zines, still blogging, still working for next to nothing, and yes, I am writing another novel. I think that I have only begun to negotiate the balance between the activist self, the writer self, and the public self. I'm starting to see them as three siblings who will meet often, respect and annoy each other in equal measure, and take alternate shifts of righteous sulking.

It's not that writing is a form of activism, or that the media wants your soul. It's that all these things are modes of engaging with other humans in a complex and polyphonic (often cacophonic) world. A world that demands all kinds of compromises: of artistic integrity, of time and money, of love and work. I hope that an awareness of that interplay will not distract me from my work, but rather, that it can make me a better writer. In engaging with the bookselling circuit, I hope that I might maintain this attitude of critical, curious gratitude.

If not, you will find me down at the crossroads under the full moon, burying an old typewriter case in the dust.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by jenjen at 7:43 AM
3 comments - - links to this post

Share |

virtual cake

Thursday, September 17, 2009

happy birthday to blogtoday marks five years since my first blog post! (and no, there is no indignity to which i will not subject my long-suffering laptop.)

i am going to make some observations about online media, even though it seems that these sorts of observations constitute fifty percent of online media content right now.

one thing which has been bugging me is the way 'democratisation' is thrown around (with a z in it) as a descriptor for the behaviour of online media. aside from there being more information around, and more people generating that information, the internet doesn't seem to have many of the qualities i remember from democracy 101.

yes, online media content is clearly becoming more *participatory*. but that is not synonymous with democratic. democratic indicates some level of popular self-governance and some institutional or at least structural checks that guard against injustice and protect the rights of the weak.

more often than not, the aggregation of opinion online leads to the influence of loud crowds. see new matilda's issues with powerful lobbyist trolls (a good example of consciously democratic new media, new matilda is also five this month). at the same time civil rights are still being violated at my doorstep and clicking 'like' doesn't seem to be having an impact.

there are plenty of ways in which networked media can be used in a democratic manner to negotiate our differences, work together to achieve a better world, etcetera. but really people are just clustering into interest groups. i think we are confusing democracy with consumer power. what is changing is not so much media as marketing, though the two inch closer together as demand continues to mutate. and so we get lovely newspeak like brand democratization, with a z of course. i can hear george weeping into his perfectly constructed cup of tea.

'democratisation' also appears to indicate a process which is naturally occurring, while in reality democracies break out between people who make them happen; that process can feel spontaneous but more often it's a hard won battle. being able to put your opinion online doesn't mean you get any more say in how your life is run, though it doesn't prevent that from happening either. because of all the ambient noise, democratic outbreaks seem less possible online than they do in heated, direct-consensus meetings held in town halls and on the streets. i'm still posting, though.

as an oldschool blogger who still shoves her face in a book when people start talking about facebook, i do wonder about my uptake of new online networks. not participating in some of it reflects a suspicion of being distracted by status-obsessed vacuousness, but also a dangerously low tolerance for socialness more generally. i feel far more saturated by information than i do empowered by it. partly, this is willing saturation. maintaining an online presence and writing and sharing opinions and having professional networks are all important to me and to my work. i am an avid reader and i set great store by being informed.

but i also suspect that as a writer, i am part of a dying breed, soon to be displaced by automated content-generating networks which intelligently target media consumers who feel empowered by their choices while being told exactly what they already think.

it's probably still better than being told what rupert murdoch wants you to think. but in this context it feels quite ridiculous to spend several years writing a book which no-one has asked to read, and then expect people to want to buy it.

oh well. happy birthday, walking and falling. five years on i still find blogging an unexpected delight.

Labels: , , ,

posted by jenjen at 11:22 AM
3 comments - - links to this post

Share |

Powered by Blogger