My fourth book has gone to my agent, and I’m starting to lay the foundations for the fifth. This one?will be entirely different. The?first four books form a series, telling the tale of constable Charles Horton and his strange encounters with crime and detection and all sorts of very odd stuff in early 19th century London and beyond.
(As an aside, the American academic Miriam Burnstein’s written really perceptive practical criticisms of the first three books, which explain a lot of what I’ve been trying to do. Honestly, it’s like she’s opened the top of?my head,?Locke & Key-style).
The next one isn’t like that. It’s going to be historical fiction, but without the weird stuff and without the crime. Well, it will have crime in it, but of a political kind. And no, I’m not saying anymore right now.
I’m knee-deep in research at the moment, but while I’m walking the dog and pondering the book I’m thinking about how to tell this story. What’s the point of view? What’s the voice? Is it a Babel of viewpoints, or is it a single voice? So far, all my books have had multiple viewpoints, and I’m leaning very much towards trying?just?one.
But even if that decision is made, what kind of viewpoint will it be? First-person or third-person? Reliable or unreliable? Contemporary or historical? Self-aware or deluded? Etc etc etc.
Two works of art are very much on my mind while I think about these things. The first is Life After Life by Kate Atkinson, which I finished very recently and which is quite remarkable. The level of skill shown by the author is mesmerising, not least because it’s the least showy book I’ve read in a very long time. ‘If it looks like writing, I cut it out,’ Elmore Leonard said, and there’s something of that in Atkinson’s writing too. But the apparent simplicity belies a narrative sophistication and control which I’ve been thinking about ever since.
The other work of art is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Sort of. This morning, a friend of mine linked to Steven Soderbergh’s site. I’m an enormous fan of Soderbergh – I admire his skill and his talent, but I also admire his commitment to art and his absolute integrity. If you’ve never read his speech on the state of modern cinema – and why he stopped making films – you really should.??On his site, he talks about something he calls?staging:
I?m assuming the phrase ?staging? came out of the theatre world, but it?s equally at home (and useful) in the movie world, since the term (roughly defined) refers to how all the various elements of a given scene or piece are aligned, arranged, and coordinated. In movies the role of editing adds something unique: the opportunity to extend and/or expand a visual (or narrative) idea to the limits of one?s imagination?a crazy idea that works today is tomorrow?s normal.
How does he illustrate what he means? Through the brazen method of taking?Raiders of the Lost Ark, removing all the audio track, replacing it with a really awful stock EDM thing, and changing it to black and white. The result is startling – you notice, for the first time, the?staging.?The arrangement of the actors, the lighting, the perspectives, the relationship between the frame and what comes into it from outside. It’s really fascinating. Take a look.
So now, I’m not thinking about voice and point-of-view. I’m thinking about?staging. Because how a scene is ‘aligned, arranged, and coordinated’ is exactly the nut?I’m trying to loosen. Trust Soderbergh to give me an interesting tool to go at it with.