Should I be a good writer, or a successfull writer?

When I look at those writers who have made a lot of money from their writing, I do tend to despair. The likes of Dan Brown are not good writers, but they write popularist books, they get some clever publicity, and they sell bucket-loads. The same applies to E L James, author of the Fifty Shades series. I will admit that I haven't read them, nor do I wish to, but I have it on good authority that they are not carefully crafted pieces of work.

This is just a rant about books I don't like. The Harry Potter books by J K Rowling I enjoyed immensely, but they were not all great writing. There are some very clever ideas in them, but there is also some less well crafted parts. But it doesn't really matter, because people bought them anyway.

I was reminded recently of Erich von Daniken, another author from many years ago, who made a lot of money with claims of proof that we had been visited by extra terrestrials, and that this explained a range of mysteries across the world. The fact that his ideas have all been shown to be false and misguided, not to mention that they don't prove what he claims anyway, has not stopped him from making a whole lot of money.

And then there are people like myself, working hard to craft my books and stories, struggling to produce well written, well thought out writing, and I can't get an agent. Of course, it is not just me who can't get an agent - it is the fact that good, high-quality writing seems not to be as appreciated as we would like to think it should be. It makes me wonder why I should try to write something good and high quality, when the stuff that sells is the opposite.

I am not an elitist who thinks that everyone should read quality literature, not just popularist stuff. I understand why people like to read the popular works (and I have also read some of them), but I do think there should be more opportunities for more serious writers. I struggle that I should have to choose between these - that writers cannot, as a whole, make a living by writing high-quality fiction.

So I have to ask myself the question, again and again, whether I should seek to write high quality, in depth, complex works, which explore the important existential questions, but will not get me published, or just write something shocking, cheap or easy to sell, with no meaning, depth or real challenge. But my real call is to people who read material, not to give up just because it is not an easy, quick read. Make the effort to read deeper works, more complicated material. Not because that will make me money, but because that will challenge you, make you think. Because, in the end, if people only read sensationalist writing, that is all that will be available, and we will be diminished as a species.

Links for my writing

I have published three works so far. This post is simply to provide a central place to contain all of the links for all of my writing. Note that I tend to write my science fiction under the name Schroedinger. They are usually available as both e-books and printed copies, published by Lulu, and so available from there as ePub and print, as well as on kindle from Amazon.

The ePub reader, if you do not already have one, is a simple download from the Lulu site. Alternatively, a kindle reader is available from Amazon to download onto a computer. Both of these readers are free. They are not available for the Nook, because of problems I have had with the Barnes and Noble site.

They will also be available in print format from Amazon, and iBookstore format should that be your preference. There are probably other places too, that they don't tell me about.

My first short story is called Bubbles, and is available across all of the platforms. It is a story about Michael, who wakes up to a nightmare beyond his wildest imaginings, and a whole lot of new possibilities and challenges.



 Available as ePub and as hard copy from Lulu, and on Kindle across the world - these are the links for the UK and the US.

My second story is Ideocide, a full length novel about - well, you will have to read it to find out. But it is about the death of ideas, the process of challenging and rediscovering beliefs. It is split into three parts - Deicide, Infanticide and Suicide. And yes, it is quite hard hitting in parts.


It is available as an ePub, and as a hard copy from Lulu. It is available in Kindle in your own country, including the US and the UK.



The latest work is the start of a collection of short stories, provided on kindle only - in the uk, but available in all countries. I wanted to make this free, but there is a problem with making kindle books free, so I am doing promotions on it instead, so it will be free each Saturday that I can make it so. I will add any other stories I produce to this collection.

Science fiction

My proof-reader, @amyunchained told me that she doesn't normally read science fiction, but she quite enjoyed my stories. It made me think about the nature of science fiction, and about what I write. My writing is SF without a doubt, but it is in truth about real people. The core of good SF is that it asks the question "What If?" and explores this in some depth, dealing with the human implication of the change. This change can be small or it can be huge. A book like Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel starts from the premise "what if magic was real?", and explores the implications in a historical setting. Iain M Banks Culture series starts from the premise that unlimited free energy is available, and scientific progress takes off. The novels then explore certain implications of this - in a universe that is radically different from ours.

There are, I think three main streams of science fiction work. A lot of people who are not familiar with the broader range may only see the first two, not least because these are the ones that get most of the film and TV time. That is unfortunate, because there is a whole lot of really good material that people would enjoy in the third category, people who do not normally like science fiction.

First category: fan-sci-fi. This is the broad area that covers anything Star Trek or Star Wars related, or draws from any other popular genre (Buffy is another core genre here - covering anything to do with vampires etc.). This is not to be critical of them, but just to acknowledge that they are not always original in concept, even if they are in execution. I would even include Firefly in this category, despite the fact that it was quite unique in concept, and is still the best SF series ever, cruelly cut short before it had a chance (not that I am bitter or anything). These stories have the advantage of being set in a universe that the reader or viewer already accepts, and so there is a lot that does not have to be defined or built. It means that the writers can explore new and challenging ideas - but it also means that they are restricted by the history of that particular genre.

Second category: apocalyptic sci-fi. This is the stuff that the sci-fi channel fills its days with - end-of-the-world scenario films. Personally, I enjoy them, even though they are usually very stylistic. In fact, I have sat at my desk at work, and realised that the group I work with is actually the cast of an apocalyptic film: The geek who is the first to die; the old embittered man who will eventually be reconcilled with his ex-wife; the underachieving manager, who will show what he is really made of, and get; the girl, who will start off being all girly, and end up showing how mentally and emotionally strong she is. They are all the same plot, they are all highly unlikely, they are usually shot on a budget rather less than my weekly fuel bill and they are fun and entertaining.

You are allowed to despise me for enjoying them. I am not by any means alone - this is why they are a staple of the sci-fi channel. I will fully acknowledge that they are not the best representation of sci-fi, but they are not intended to be. And one of the best sci-fi films ever - The Day the Earth Stood Still (the 1951 version, of course, not the appalling Keanu Reeves remake) - comes under an apocalyptic theme.

Third cateogry: human sci-fi. This includes my recent book Bubbles, and my next one Ideocide, out soon. It is the area of sci-fi that I find most engaging as far as stories go, because it is about real people, about our world, but with some change. The settings may be different (Ideocide is set in the future), but the real stories are asking "what if" about here on earth, today. John Wyndham - famous for the Triffids - wrote a lot in this sort of way, asking what if parallel universes existed; what if some people had telepathy or other curiosities; what if spiders were to organise themselves like ants (this is Web, a good example of this approach). The core point is that we can look at other people, in other situations, with some significant change, and apply the lessons and the insights to ourselves. They are people stories, just alike any other fiction, but are classified as "science fiction" because there is some technological abstraction.

Well that is science fiction for you. If you thought you might not enjoy it, then maybe you have been looking in the wrong categories. Maybe you need to read my books, my stories, and find something different.

Theological insight? Simply that stories are at the core of our  understanding of truth. We need to read good stories, including the ones in the bible, because good stories lead us to truth.

Faith and writing

At Greenbelt, I went to hear the wonderful Deborah Fielding, who, among other things, had the best jumper on site. But she was also excellent on the subject of writing too.

It inspired me, and I am currently writing a set of very short stories, which I will get published eventually - watch this space for more details. I would like to make it free, but it will be dirt cheap, honest!

If Jesus was around today, I suspect he would be writing short stories.

The reason is that short stories - especially - make a point and leave a lot of the surrounding history and future to the imagination. Jesus Parables were short stories, although they had a different structure and purpose than most short stories, they share something in common - memorability, and a point to make people think.

Stories are of critical importance to any culture. However much people wish to assume that they are "too advanced" or "scientific" to bother with "folk tales", we all know stories from our childhood, from our culture, and they impact the way we do things, and what we believe. At core, stories tell us what to believe, and belief impact action.

Take, for example, the currently popular philosophical writer Ayn Rand. She wrote stories, like Atlas Shrugged, which contained and expounded her philosophy.Even the hardened, capitalist right who follow the (frankly ridiculous) principles she expounds, learnt them from stories. In fact, anyone who wants to expound a popularist philosophy needs to do it in stories - and Christianity in included.

The think is, Christianity is based on myths. Now don't misunderstand me, because I hold myths in very high regard. Myths, like fairy tales, are not "untruths", rather they are truths, conveyed through stories, intended to tell a reality and truth that is difficult to explore any other way. Myths and stories help us to link to a truth that is beyond our empirical grasp, help us link to truths that we can only express in stories.

If we lose our stories, we lose our truths and reality. Stories are important, because stories make us think, an stories encompass our thoughts. My faith, my belief, my truth is built on stories. I am not ashamed of that, because the same applies to everyone. I am just prepared to admit it. Are you? What stories is your truth based on?