 'no-frills'
I was due to go on holiday tomorrow, and the first part of the journey involves a ‘no-frills’ airline. ‘No-frills’ means ‘no service’, so I was concerned that my crocked leg, permanently braced at a constant zero degrees, would count as a frill (i.e it might require some service).
I found this on the Easyjet website, under Carrier’s Regulations:
‘Adult passengers travelling with lower limbs in cast, waist and/or full leg plaster, must purchase three seats in total, per journey, to travel.’
British Airways require only one extra seat, presumably because the seats are wider. Prof Shiro Yamamoto (who once made a 2-day trip from Tokyo to London to buy a violin), tells me one extra seat is also necessary per cello.
But two seats. That’ll cost ya.
The insurance company was helpful – the extra seats are cheaper than a cancelled holiday for five, so I bought the extra seats. My body now has one reserved seat, my leg has two. Never in my life have I pampered a limb quite so shamelessly. The body goes coach and the leg goes business – or even better, I have a first class leg.
I wish I’d thought of this earlier. I’ve always taken my legs for granted, on an epic scale. In the next few months alone I had plans to tour the Pyrennees on foot with Bruno, and to cycle up the Tourmalet in early October with Virtual Tom. I’m also open to impromtu displays of leg negligence, and would love to have taken part in an August Alpine ultra-marathon like this (for an excellent cause, please give generously).
Even then, I wouldn’t have said thankyou. Until now. I’ve offered my damaged leg two seats of its own on a plane. The other leg is getting jealous - I can feel the tendon tightening, plotting revenge. I make a point of thanking it for standing me up. It seems to help.
 'no, after you'
Last night I introduced the fantastic Robert Goddard, who was giving the NAW lecture at the Birmingham Book Festival. He’s a speaker who can make a 500 seat auditorium seem like a living room, partly because he knows what he’s talking about.
A crime writer, he says, has to get things right. And to get things right, it helps to be the kind of person who protects detail like others feel for kittens. If temperamenally you enjoy searching out errors in ancient train timetables (Bradshaw’s (d.1961) for maximum satisfaction) , you could do worse than try your hand at a crime novel.
Also, it’s always reassuring when at a public event a professional storyteller turns out to be brilliant at telling stories. The one I enjoyed most involved the correct etiquette for a gentleman who wishes to show a lady through a revolving door. His dilemma is that he needs to help with the door, but without pushing in front.
The correct solution, apparently, is for the gentleman to enter the revolving door alone, complete four fifths of a cycle (alone), and then to allow the lady to enter the empty section in front of him. He may then complete the cycle, following the lady graciously into the lobby.
Alas, this kind of attention to detail is rarely easy to follow in practice. Other people are ignorant and push in front. And ladies are not as patient as they used to be.
I had a similar dilemma come up in Becoming Drusilla. I can never remember whether the man (if he’s a gentleman) is supposed to walk on the right or the left of his companion. In my mind I have memories of two conflicting possibilities:
‘The man walks on the outside [next to the road] to protect the lady from wheel splash. Or the man walks on the left [which will sometimes be shopside], keeping his scabbard clear, ready at any moment to safely draw his sword and defend the lady’s honour. Or is that the right, freeing the sword arm?’
Looking back on this, I don’t think a gentleman would stand on the right. Even though the sword-arm would be free, the sword in pulling clear might rent and slash the lady’s clothes (crinoline, hopefully) in the act of being honourably drawn.
The answer to this dilemma has since revealed itself. A gentleman should stand on the left of the lady, but should always walk on the right-hand side of the road. Then everyone’s happy.
I should be writing crime novels. I’m that kind of guy.
 Some People Know Everything
I’ve done a bad bad thing. Reading the Bible seems like a culturally rewarding thing to do, like going to Shakespeare plays and listening to Bach. It doesn’t happen that often and it’s not always for fun, but I know I’m not going to come out the other side any more ignorant than I am already.
The twitch state starts with Bible Commentaries. Worse - New Testament bible commentaries. There should be a warning against reading books about the books of the bible, because New Testament Studies is not a field in which anyone can dabble. You’re either in or you’re a non swimmer, and not even everybody who’s in can swim.
The gospels are constructed using devices familiar from postmodernism. A ’frame’ in Mark describes his habit of starting one story, interrupting with another, and then returning to the climax of the first. This is partly why the gospels are open to so many interpretations – there’s a kind of unpredictable spark or molecular reaction in the unwritten gaps between two stories that taken separately are as simple as you like:
Be good to other people.
Matthew and Luke then take chunks of Mark , called pericopes, and move them about and make new versions of the same story. I think they’re trying to demystify the message:
Be good to other people.
If they weren’t so premodern they’d have known that demystification isn’t what’s coming next.
Seen like this, the gospel written second is already trying to save Jesus from the first gospel, and so on. Until eventually even Richard Dawkins wants to save Jesus from the Christians – he claims to own a T-shirt saying Atheists for Jesus.
A good slogan never dies and there’s now an A for J website.
There’s also a book on Amazon called The Postmodern Bible, but I haven’t had time to look at it yet. I’m buried under Bible Commentaries, and I’m sinking.
Bigging up the Short Story
November 2008
www.theshortstory.org

Talking up the short story is an admirable enterprise, especially in Britain. The short story has been having a hard time, with outlets for publication shrinking and collections barely able to reach an agent’s desk. The idea of short stories making money has become as quaint a notion as travelling by commercial balloon. It is therefore quite right, and compatible with the national instinct, to support the underdog. We take the side of the short story and try to big it up.
One way of doing this, which short story enthusiasts will recognise, is to suggest that a story is as challenging to write as a novel. Each line must be impeccably precise, no word can be wasted. This is true. The bad news for writers is that every line should be equally meticulous in a novel. There’s no letting up on quality just because more pages demand to be filled. The writer has to write well for longer, at the same time administering the vast bureaucracy of a novel: the structure, the people, the places, the meals, the transport – all the required paperwork.
Or perhaps, as some people argue, the short story has a particular contemporary relevance because these days time itself is shorter, or shorter than it used to be. This may be so, but another contemporary phenomenon is greed, and there’s a sense of frustration that comes bundled with every short story ever written, and especially so in the finest examples. I can recognise why the writer stopped writing, but as a greedy reader if I like what I read I want more and more of the same.
How about another 200 pages or so? At which point, of course, the story may start to resemble a novel. The main limitation of the short story is its shortness, which is one reason the novel has developed into the dominant form it now is.
The shortness of a short story (there it is again – impossible to escape this defining feature) is also a major attraction to novelists. The same, only easier. The writing process is instantly recognisable – do one thing you can’t do and which is difficult, and when that’s done do another – but this series of difficulties comes to an end much sooner. Writers have a vested interested in talking up the form.
There are other pleasures. It can be interesting to sacrifice some of the what-happens-nextness (the engine of a novel) for more of the what’s-happening-nowness (the focus of a story). Beyond that, the challenge for a writer is not technical but conceptual: identifying and sorting ideas into the right shapes and sizes. I get different types of ideas (thankfully) and because different forms offer different opportunities I’ve written a sports book, a travel book, and a biography. This is how I know that writing novels throws up the most problems quickest, and therefore offers the best apprenticeship for all other forms of creative writing, including short stories.
I came to short stories late, and it may be that my ideas are getting smaller. I’m running out, or running down. I’m also using up what’s left over. Stories are useful for that, too, with the added advantage of avoiding The Best Book In The World syndrome, which can make writing books so daunting. There’s always the temptation to delay work on a book because it has to be The Best Book In The World. Now. Today.
Stories are more relaxed, more comfortably likened to a game of Patience: set up the cards and arrange the conflict (black on red, red on black) – sometimes it comes out, and sometimes it doesn’t. When it does, as with any other type of writing, it’s because the words fit the sentences fit the paragraphs fit the structure fit the form fit the ideas fit the writer. And when that happens, when everything comes together, small is just as likely to be beautiful.
York, who took the place of Gloucester, was in alliance with Cambridge, though the main Yorkist network was in the South and West. The Lancastrians rose in Kent. Norfolk was for York, but not Warwick, while the king was stricken with measles at Durham. The Earl of March drove the King to Wiltshire in July and August. York was summoned to Leicester but retired in spurs to Sandal, in Yorkshire, where he was joined by Warwick and Salisbury. Buckingham and Dorset were wounded and carried home in a cart. York became the stronghold of the Lancastrians while Exeter, remembering St Albans, beheaded Salisbury, the son of Buckingham. Somerset went north and the ensuing battle took place in a blinding snowstorm.
Or a fog. At Barnet, Warwick turned the king’s left flank, but Warwick too was turned while Oxford from Lancaster overlapped the Yorkist left before getting lost. He eventually arrived in Somerset’s rear, whose flank had already been routed meaning a pedestrian Warwick battered to death.
On balance, historians believe, the winner was England.
|
About Me
About Richard Beard
I'm a novelist and non-fiction writer, and Director of The National Academy of Writing in London. As time goes by I'm gradually transferring the material from the old site (stories, articles, squibs) into the categories tabbed above. There's information on each of my books, with summaries and reviews, and now that I'm permanently back in the country I'm available for events and readings. Email me using Contact, below. I'll get back to you.
|