March 5th, 2007
TEV’s novel, JP Donleavy likes choirs, Book abuse, Beryl Bainbridge and ‘Pop Fiction’
* Q: “What advice would you give to new writers?
A: “I don’t think you should ever try to make things up. We all lead such strange lives that there is no need to. Use your own experiences and then twist it a bit. You should read what you have written out loud. I write a paragraph at a time and I walk up and down reading it out loud. It has to go te tum te dum te tum te dum. If it doesn’t, then there’s a word wrong. It hasn’t got rhythm, so I re-write it.” Beryl Bainbridge on why she writes.
I interviewed Bainbridge around the time her book about Samuel Johnson According to Queeney was on the Booker longlist. Without thinking, I put my big clumsy foot in it by asking her about being nominated for the award five times and not winning. What was meant to be a genuine curiosity about how she felt about this came out as some sort of “always the bridesmaid, never the bride” comment. As soon as the words were out of my mouth, her tone - understandably - got a little stony, but she very graciously didn’t hang up on me. Sorry Beryl, I didn’t mean it.
*Proving that you can blog AND write a book, Mark Sarvas of The Elegant Variation has had his novel accepted by Bloomsbury (who published his lit-hero John Banville’s Prague Pictures).
Huge congrats to the newly wed Mr. Sarvas.
* Love it or hate, chick lit is going away and tomorrow night’s Arts Lives on ‘Pop Fiction (RTE 1, 10.15pm) tackles the publishing juggernaut that is chick lit. Each to their own, but it’s not for me so I’ll be lurking somewhere within those 60 minutes grumbling about it.
* What do ‘Water of Tyne’ by the Farnham Youth Choir, ‘Oh Susannah’ by The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and ‘Annie Laurie’ by The Red Army Ensemble all have in common? They were among the rather obscure choices of The Ginger Man author JP Donleavy when he recently appeared on the BBC’s Desert Island Discs. Phil Daoust was not amused by his non-interview.
* Ben Schott of (yes, of that Almanac) confesses to being a book abuser.
*This month’s bookclub is fast approaching on Wednesday, and yours truly still has two-thirds of Jon McGregor’s If No One Speaks of Remarkable Things to get through. Typical last-minute me.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I was in Waterstones yesterday and picked up a copy of Pride and Prejudice nicely repackaged in pink - I nearly threw up…I took a photo and I must blog/rant about this… Pink! Jane Austen is not, and never shall be Chick Lit
March 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
my punctuation could do with a bit of tweaking in that comment - my apologies…
March 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Arrrgh, I hear ye, it’s wrong, wrong, wrong to call Jane Austen or the Brontes chick lit, but at the same time if those fluffy new covers get women reading - women, who would normally run a mile from a classic - perhaps it’s a good thing?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
What about the guys - how many men do you know who’ll read a pink book?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“What about the guys – how many men do you know who’ll read a pink book?”
Jeez, I never thought of that…
I suppose we’re talking about very gender specific marketing, but it’s a real shame.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
It’s a travesty - I’m sure Ms Austen would have made a very acerbic and appropriate reply
March 6th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I thought it was women who read. I only read because I have a strong feminine side. Perhaps it’s women who read imaginative fiction? I saw some statistics somewhere.
I have a pink notebook; does that count?
Things have been marketed since the beginning of history, haven’t they?
March 7th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Hi Sinead - First well done on your award. RE: Pink Books. Your contribution to last night’s programme was great. I read chick-lit and am not ashamed of it but I like to think the kind of stuff I read is at least clever, funny and well written.
I actually wrote a piece about chick-lit in the IT on Saturday and Patricia Scanlon dashed off an hysterical letter to the editor because in the article I dared to point out that a lot of chick-lit is badly written. I don’t know if the IT is going to publish it or not,
I should post the letter here for the laugh. But I’d probably get fired for that so I won’t. Anyway well done again. R
March 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Hello Ms. Ingle - thanks for the comment, sorry that Duke Special didn’t win the Choice Prize.
Can you post the link to that article? I’ll try and find it in the meantime.
My problem is not with chick lit per se, it’s with bad writing and flimsy stories, which a lot of chick lit is.
I wouldn’t lump Marian Keyes in with chick because I think she’s a good writer and what she does, she does very well.
I’d love to read that letter!
March 7th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Roisin - post the letter, post the letter pullleeeasse
March 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Don’t get fired. It’s not worth it. We need your voice.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
The IT may yet publish the letter, I think they are deciding as we speak. I just read a brilliant article on chick-lit by Rosita Sweetman in the December/January issue of Magill. I will email you that one and mine also and you can link them here.
(Thanks Omaniblog, don’t want to get fired, love my job!)
March 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Just found the link for Roisin’s article in last Saturday’s Irish Times.
Roisin, thanks for the Magill, I’d missed that article. I like the paragraph: “How come these bodice rippers, these low grade, low budget, low brow, just-one-step-above Mills and Boons “stories for shop girls” are selling in their thousands, in their millions?”
How come, indeed.
I’ll keep an eye on the IT letters page.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Just spotted something in that Magill article - that’s not the right Kate Thompson if I’m not mistaken?