Well, that explains a lot
Oct. 17th, 2009 07:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sheenaghpughWill Self, in an article in today's Guardian on Roald Dahl, has this quote:
I was once with Martin Amis when he was asked if he'd ever consider writing a children's book. He thought for a few moments before drawling: "I might . . . if I had brain damage."
No wonder I've always found Amis a dull author! Indeed he's a dullard full stop, if he seriously imagines you need less ability to write for the world's most discerning and least forgiving audience. When, years ago, I was reading the first page of some Amis on which bugger all of any interest appeared to be going on, I ploughed on with it in case it got better, as adults do (it didn't). A child, faced with the same lack of any narrative hook, would have thrown the book across the room and gone in search of something more interesting, an expedient I only reached after several more pages. Self, by the sound of him, would consider it, but then he's a far sparkier, more open-minded and more surprising author.
When I taught creative writing, I'd sometimes have first years ask advice on what to study in the second year. This was when children's writing kicked in (too advanced for first years, see) and I'd always say, by all means have a go at it if the craft fascinates you, just don't, whatever you do, opt for it because you're struggling with writing for adults and think this'll be easier, cos it isn't.
I was once with Martin Amis when he was asked if he'd ever consider writing a children's book. He thought for a few moments before drawling: "I might . . . if I had brain damage."
No wonder I've always found Amis a dull author! Indeed he's a dullard full stop, if he seriously imagines you need less ability to write for the world's most discerning and least forgiving audience. When, years ago, I was reading the first page of some Amis on which bugger all of any interest appeared to be going on, I ploughed on with it in case it got better, as adults do (it didn't). A child, faced with the same lack of any narrative hook, would have thrown the book across the room and gone in search of something more interesting, an expedient I only reached after several more pages. Self, by the sound of him, would consider it, but then he's a far sparkier, more open-minded and more surprising author.
When I taught creative writing, I'd sometimes have first years ask advice on what to study in the second year. This was when children's writing kicked in (too advanced for first years, see) and I'd always say, by all means have a go at it if the craft fascinates you, just don't, whatever you do, opt for it because you're struggling with writing for adults and think this'll be easier, cos it isn't.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Ooooh, Martin Amis.
Date: 2009-10-17 08:41 am (UTC)Re: Ooooh, Martin Amis.
Date: 2009-10-17 10:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-17 09:35 am (UTC)Though, I'm also rather intrigued by the idea of a children's book by Will Self.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-17 11:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-17 02:10 pm (UTC)I seem to remember an anecdote in which Dahl tried to persuade Kingsley Amis to write a children's book on the grounds that it was money for old rope, but that kind of no-bullshit saloon-bar cynicism was just the currency in which their crowd dealt, I think (cf the letters between KA and P Larkin, for gobs more of the same). It was kind of pathetic, but shouldn't be taken at face value. I'd like to think that Martin Amis's comment was made in the same spirit, though in his case I kind of doubt it.
As a footnote to yesterday's Jan Moir shenanigans, I was sad to read yesterday that Stephen Gateley was due shortly to publish a children's book. This now seems to be a scheduled stop on the route to celebrity, along with launching one's own underwear range and perfume, and it's not exactly conducive to gaining the genre artistic respect.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-17 02:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-17 03:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-17 04:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-17 07:46 pm (UTC)