My wife and I went to see The Wolf of Wall Street, the new film directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, last week.  While I have great respect for both Scorsese and DiCaprio, as artists, I found the film disappointing.

I’ve looked at the reviews in the main London newspapers.  The Daily Telegraph, the Independent and The Guardian all gave it good reviews, although The Guardian said, “The Wolf of Wall Street does not quite have the subtlety and richness of Scorsese’s very best work, but what an incredibly exhilarating film: a deafening and sustained howl of depravity.”  It is definitely is a deafening and sustained howl of depravity, and doesn’t have the subtlety and richness of Scorsese’s best work.  I think that for me, the problem was that I didn’t find it ‘incredibly exhilarating’.  The Wall Street Journal was somewhat more ambivalent, saying: “The film may well prove profitable: Lurid outlaws are always appealing, and there’s pleasure to be had in the downfall of slimeballs. But ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ demands a huge investment of time for a paltry return.”

There is a comment in my last post: “Moral lessons don’t belong in a good novel.  They can be part of a novel, but if that’s the focus, I put the novel down and read the scriptures.”  Of course, in this case we’re talking about a film, rather than a novel, but I think the comment is still valid.  One might well question whether a moral lesson is the focus of The Wolf of Wall Street, since DiCaprio’s character never shows a jot of remorse, and the focus is clearly on the depravity.  The character does end up in prison, but this seems to be more the result of bad behaviour, rather than any sort of moral judgement.

Several reviews take the position that the film is hilarious in its excess.  There is plenty of excess in addition to its three hours length: excessive drug taking (if this were real, the main characters would be dead within the first half hour), excessive swearing (the f-word seemed to be the adjective of choice), excessive group sex with hoards of naked women; and an excessively large trading room (densely packed and the size of a football pitch – if this were real, the company would have swallowed up all its competitors).  I didn’t find any of these excesses amusing.  I like naked women, but not so many at one time that no one can be appreciated.  And, I like sex, but for me it’s best as a one-to-one, mutually-enjoyable activity for consenting adults, not a crazed, grope-and-get activity.  So, I didn’t find any of these excesses funny; sorry, I thought they were rather sad.

When I left the theatre, I thought, “What was the point of that?”  Was it supposed to be a comedy?  If so, it wasn’t particularly funny, and even if I have a warped sense of humour, isn’t Scorsese capable of something better than a comedy?  Was it supposed to be a commentary on the excesses in America and the financial sector, in particular?  What was newsworthy or interesting in displaying those excesses?  Was it supposed to be a morality tale?  It wasn’t really pitched that way, and if it had been, who would have liked it?  I think it was just supposed to be a romp – a film about a bigger, more ‘grown-up’, less-supervised, fraternity party.

I have to say that the acting and the directing were superb.  The characters were all very real.  Too bad I didn’t like any of them!

Sable Shadow and The Presence has been awarded runner-up in adult fiction at the London Book Festival, 2013.

Over 3,000 books were submitted to this contest, and there were about 130 books awarded honourable mention in fifteen categories.  Full details are available at http://londonbookfestival.com/portal/content.asp?contentid=606.

I decided to attend the awards ceremony which was held at the British Library in London.  There were about twenty-five people in attendance, half of whom were authors who came to collect their awards.  The event began at 7 pm with drinks, heavy hors d’oeuvres and mingling.  At 8 pm the ceremony began with an introduction by a representative of the festival, who then introduced each of the wining authors.

Thankfully, the acceptance speeches were (with one exception) mercifully brief, and we were all homeward bound at 9:15.

In my comments, I mentioned that my original idea for Sable Shadow and The Presence was to write a novel in the first person (which I had never done before), and that my key idea was that the central character would, as a child, hear voices which he did not recognise, and which he came to know as Sable Shadow (a representative of the devil) and The Presence (a representative of God).  I produced about three chapters and sent them to my friend, Peter, who is an avid reader of quality literature, and why says exactly what he thinks.  About three weeks later I got an email advising me that the work I had done was ‘boring’.  I had to admit that the book wasn’t fulfilling my expectations,either, so I put it aside, and in the meantime, I wrote The Iranian Scorpion.

But, after a year, I felt that the unfinished work deserved attention.  I had some additional thoughts: that Henry, the principal character would reveal the relationships (both good and bad) that exist in large corporations, and that he would begin to hold an existentialist’s view of the world.  (I think that Existentialism is wrongly thought of as anti-Christian.  In fact, I think it has much to recommend it as a way of understanding human life.  Besides, I had some concepts to add to the existentialist portfolio.)  So, I went back to work: re-writing much of the work I had done, and writing more.  The novel was finished, edited and published.  I gave Peter one of the first copies.  About three days later, I got an email from Peter in which he said he couldn’t put it down, that it was a fascinating book, and he thanked me for writing it.  I closed my talk by thanking Peter for his reviews – particularly the first, and thanking the Festival for selecting the novel.

I will make three, free copies of my latest novel, Sable Shadow and The Presence, available to readers who agree to post a review of 100 words or more on this blog.  Please leave me your name and address.  First come, first served!

The synopsis of Sable Shadow and The Presence is as follows:  This is a fictional autobiographical novel of Henry Lawson, who at a young age hears strange voices which, at first, he does not recognise.  He attributes one voice to ‘Sable Shadow’, a confidant of the devil, and the other to The Presence, a representative of God.

In high school, Henry is introduced to the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre, and he begins to see life in existential terms, while not infringing on his rudimentary Christian beliefs.

Upon Henry’s entry into the world of business, he receives guidance from Sable Shadow; this advances him to a high corporate level.  With his career nearly at its peak, he suffers a series of devastating tragedies.  He feels tormented and attempts suicide.  With the help of his wife, and a psychiatrist with whom he engages in existential dialogue, he constructs a successful, new Identity.

The novel follows Henry’s growing and selective acceptance of existentialism, and his efforts to make it a personal guide to living rather than a series of abstractions.

The novel has philosophical, psychological and theological dimensions, but it is firmly set in the every-day world of good and evil, triumph and tragedy.

I will extend this same offer to my other four novels: Fishing in Foreign Seas, Sin and Contrition, Efraim’s Eye, and The Iranian Scorpion.   Information about these novels can be found at my website: www.williampeace.net.

Each reader will be limited to one book until a review on the previous book is posted.

My email address is: bill at williampeace dot net

I have received this review from a friend who, two years ago, saw an earlier draft of Sable Shadow and The Presence.  At the time, he told me it was “boring”.  Needless to say, I have worked hard on it since.
Congratulations Bill! an outstanding achievement! I couldn’t put it down, meals no meals, I swallowed the book in two days. Your prose has become self assured.  You dominate it, rather  than being dominated by it. The research, as ever, is superb, and also completely open to being understood by the layman. 
I drank in the corporate politics, and the acquisition of Nano made me ”homesick” for my General Foods’ period in France. You have certainly managed to recreate life as it is lived – even to the pertinent introduction of the meta-physical element – though a bit wobbly in spots, it stands solid, protected by Sartre.
I like it (the meta-physical element) and feel close to it – I guess that’s one of the reasons why I think it such a  remarkable creation.  Your progressive development of style, skills and plot makes my mouth water for the goodies to come.  Thank you from me, but really from all your readers.

As you may know, the Man Booker Prize was awarded to New Zealander, Eleanor Catton, for her second novel, The Luminairies.  This was the last year that the prize is open only to British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens.  Beginning next year, novels published in English and released in Great Britain will be eligible.

Adam Frost and James Kynvin of the Guardian, complied these charts which are based on more than 40 years of data.  They show what it has taken to win this prestigious prize. 

1.  Male writers have a 2:1 advantage over women.

2.  It’s best to be British: 27 of 45 winners were British, although chances of a non-British person winning have tripled in the last 20 years.

3.  Almost two-thirds of the winners were privately educated.

4.  Almost one-third of the winners attended either Oxford or Cambridge.

5.  One must remember that the judges tend to be white, British, privately educated at either Oxford of Cambridge, and that prior judges have won the prize.

6. The average age of the winner was 49, and the age range is 28 (this year) to 69.

7.  There is quite a range of which book, in an author’s portfolio, won the prize, but for seven authors it was their fourth novel.

8.  More winning novels are set in the past than in the present.

9.  Different authors have different words they favour.

10.  Sales will increase very dramatically!  Even being short listed makes a difference, and it’s good for the author’s backlist, as well.

I submitted Efraim’s Eye to the Writer’s Digest Self-Published Book Awards.  It did not win an award; there were 2,800 books submitted.  But, I did receive the judges rating which is as follows:

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “needs improvement” to 5 “outstanding”:

Structure & Organisation: 4

Grammar: 5

Product Quality & Cover Design: 3

Plot: 4

Character Development: 4

The judges commentary is:

“The writing crackles with authenticity, and tells a compelling story that lends itself to the thriller genre.  The crosscutting of scenes and shifting between viewpoints is cinematic in nature, and so this book would lend itself quite well to being filmed commercially.  The cast of characters, especially Paul as he emerges to become the primary protagonist, are individually and collectively, certainly strong enough to command center stage throughout the novel and will successfully engage the reader’s interest in wanting to know what will happen next.  This is a really entertaining plot that could easily appeal to a wide audience.

The novel would benefit from some additional character and peripheral description during dialogue.  For example as a character speaks, ‘he ran his fingers through his dark curly hair’, or, ‘she spoke faster than usual, no longer in the slow monotone’.  In these two hypotheticals, the curly hair and the speech pattern would have been introduced early on as character tags, and referring to them keeps these characters fresh in the reader’s mind during dialogue.  Similarly, as during ‘real life’ conversation, characters can be aware of their surroundings: hot or cold or rainy?  Some detail catches the eye, there’s a noise in the background, perhaps pleasant, perhaps bothersome, but in either case noticeable.  This sort of texture will enliven dialogue on the printed page.”

I think the feedback in the second paragraph above is very helpful, and I agree particularly with the first comment about additional characterization.  I think additional characterization beyond the dialogue itself is helpful to the reader, not only as a character tag or reminder, but as an indication of the character’s personality and emotional state.  I think one needs to be careful of peripheral description of the setting.  The question for me is: does it contribute directly to the situation in which the characters find themselves or to their state of mind.  If it does, by all means add it; if it doesn’t, it will seem extraneous.

There is an article in today’s Telegraph in which Jonathan Franzen, the American author of The Corrections and Freedom, finds that freelance writers being forced into “constant self-promotion” instead of developing their craft “particularly alarming”.  He told Radio 4’s Today program that he used technology constantly, but warned that is was a “weird compulsive, almost addictive thing which doesn’t seem to have much to do with what were thought to be the great benefits of it.”  He claimed that young authors were being told they must improve their social network presence before their manuscripts were considered.  “Agents will now tell young writers, ‘I won’t even look at your manuscript if you don’t have 250 followers on Twitter’.”

He said that observers could see the “demolition of the independent book business and really the demolition of the brick-and-mortar book business” by internet sellers.

Speaking of Twitter, he added: “But really this kind of crowd-sourcing model – everything shared, communal – doesn’t really work.  Most important, the whole definition of literature is that people go off by themselves, develop a distinctive voice.  It’s not a communal enterprise.”

I think that Franzen makes a very good point, and it’s the reason I don’t have a Twitter account.  For me, writing a 140 character tweet every day would be a time-consuming exercise in triviality.  What could I possibly say, every day, in 140 characters, that would be insightful about my writing in particular or about the writing of fiction generally?

The reasons I have this blog is that, once a week, I have to try to say something insightful about the business of writing.  It makes me think about what I do, what other writers do, and how and why we do it.  It’s a kind of discipline.  Initially, I had thought I would enter into a dialogue with interested readers.  This, unfortunately hasn’t happened: after two years, there are only six genuine comments.  If I want to read what people think of my novels, I’m better off looking at the reviews I have received.  Still, some people are following this blog: about 1000 per week, not including spam.

I can’t help but comment on Franzen’s “constant use of technology”.  I remember him saying a couple of years ago that he did not have Internet access at the desk where he wrote.  I could not write without almost constant Internet access, because it helps me keep the settings real, interesting and credible.

Technology does have its drawbacks, though.  Earlier this week, I replaced a ten year old desk top with a new, state-of-the-art laptop, which I have connected to my keyboard, monitor and mouse.  Going from Windows XP to Windows 8 was a bit of an ordeal: ‘how do I close this window?’.  And, I had to get professional help to move my email, calendar, and contacts from Outlook Express on the old machine to Outlook on the new one.  But it’s done now: much faster and more reliable.  Besides, I’ve even got an iPhone (instead of my ancient dumb phone) which can tell me more about the world than I could possibly want to know.

Naomi plays an important role in my novel Efraim’s Eye.  When we first meet her she comes into the lounge of the Riad el Norj (a small hotel) in Marrakech, introduces herself to Paul, and “settled herself on the sofa opposite him, her legs folded under her and her brown leather sandals on the floor.  She was wearing a long, Laura Ashley, flower-print dress with short sleeves and a high neckline.  Her purse – a small brown leather sack with red, silk rope ties – lay by her sandals.”

The charity for which Paul was to complete the crucial auditing assignment had already briefed him (superficially) on Naomi, who, as Operations Director of the charity would join him in Marrakech to assist him with the language and the audit.  The chief executive of the charity had told Paul, “Naomi grew up in Jerusalem.  Her mother is Jewish and her father is a Swedish musician.  As a child, she learned Hebrew, Arabic, Swedish and some English.  She has a degree in languages from City University in London, so her English is polished, and she’s picked up German, French and Spanish as well. . . . Naomi has great language skills, is very good with people, and she fully understands what GYE is about.  What you bring to the team is business experience and financial skills. . . . If she didn’t work for GYE, Naomi would probably be a musician.  Don’t get me wrong, she does a great job for us, but she doesn’t particularly like confrontations.”

What the chief executive knew, at the time, was that Paul would have to confront the CEO of the small Moroccan subsidiary of GYE.  What he didn’t know was that the assignment would also involve a confrontation with the CEO’s half brother: Efraim, the terrorist.

In listening to Naomi tell her life history (she was in her mid-thirties), he understood that Naomi had an unsettled relationship with her father, who abandoned his wife and small daughter to return to Sweden.  And Paul, reliable, steady Paul, in his mid-fifties, became, for Naomi, a surrogate father as the pressure of the confrontations increased.

Paul could see that Naomi was beautiful and desirable.  What he didn’t see – until they became lovers – was her child-like naivete.  Their passionate love affair forced her to confront her own assumptions about what she wanted out of life.

She experienced another transformation when she was abducted and severely beaten by Efraim: her culturally ingrained thirst for retaliation burst forth.  Naomi turns the tables on Efraim when Paul captures Efraim and sets her  free: she beats Efraim with his whip.  Paul asked, “He didn’t . . . I mean I know he whipped you. but did he . . .” Paul was unable to utter the words.”
“No, if he had, I would have shot him in the balls, and then after a while – probably quite a while – I would have shot him in the head.”

Paul looked at her searchingly.  She gave him a slight smile and turned away.  “You don’t understand,” she began, “how your sweet little charity nomad could turn into such an unmerciful fury.”  Paul nodded.

She shrugged.  “I don’t know.  The hate and anger just boiled up overwhelmingly inside me.  Something snapped.  I couldn’t whimper and plead.  I felt powerfully defiant.  I was God’s chained angel, and he was the devil incarnate!  Besides, Israelis believe absolutely in the power of retribution.”

In the aftermath of Efraim’s attack on the eye, Naomi makes another transformation which effects not only her, Paul and Paul’s children, but also Sarah, Paul’s former lover.