My blog has moved!
You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
http://www.justeffing.com
and update your bookmarks.
Hello, Wavers - I've posted the educational YouTube video below, for a thumbnail of the strike issues and you should of course enjoy the fantabulous new AMPTP website.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
I'm no Betty Friedan or Germaine Greer but I feel I owe powerful, intelligent women a debt. Women like the aforementioned. Women like Susan Sontag, Madame Curie, George Sand, Susan B. Anthony, Madonna, Oprah Winfrey, Naomi Wolf, Hilary Clinton, Helen Keller - oh I must stop now because I'll offend someone, somehow with an inclusion or exclusion but you get my drift. In a world where the bodies of 40 women were recently found on the outskirts of Baghdad, in a ditch, with notes on their mutilated bodies explaining that they met their deaths for not wearing proper headscarves, powerful, influential trailblazers who just happen to be women pave the way for a better world.
When I was a kid, a bitch was a nasty, unpleasant woman. It was a pretty dirty word. It was also a female dog and that was the only way we kids could attempt snickering subterfuge. But today bitch has taken on a hyper ugly meaning of subjugation. Men can be bitches. Anyone can be a byotch, the ha-ha internet-censorship-free version of bitch which has taken on a life of its own.
I hear the word bitch used almost daily by Jon Stewart, by friends, by my daughter to her friends, on the radio - seemingly everywhere. One of my friends said it to me the other day on the phone and we both laughed an uneasy laugh before it trailed off into discomfort. I wonder - how have we come to this? How have we come to tolerate a word that could not possibly embody a deeper, uglier belief about the way in which women are esteemed in this world? We can have women senators and judges and television anchors but at the end of the day, in jest which burns in acidic truth - they're just bitches and Jennifer Love Hewitt, all (I'm guessing) a hundred eighteen pounds of her - has a fat ass.
Bitch is a lose-lose word. To call a man a bitch is to say he is being either snippy, needy or hysterical OR that the bitch label recipient is in some way owned by the speaker in the most final, definitive way possible. She's my bitch. Where's my beer - bitch? I slapped that bitch. That's what I said - bitch.
The use of bitch with this new, more keen, deeply misogynistic twist of total subjugation seems to have emerged from rap music. Nobody shoot me - that's just my anecdotal observation. And no, it's not pc. The Wave-inatrix, with her playful moniker which connotes domination knows that Rouge Wavers are smart enough to know that this is playful nickname that stuck and bears no relationship to my views or demeanor. So no pot calling kettle black comments about hair-splitting semantics, please. This discussion is important.
Regardless of the derivation of this new usage, I do wonder - is this okay, this new use of bitch? What does it say about us as a society? Do we accept a word as a joke but overlook it's deeper meaning because that's being over-analytical? Or is this something we should be paying attention to?
To paraphrase George Orwell, who understood deeply that language matters, it is my opinion that the use of the word bitch is double-plus ungood.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
The Wave-inatrix has been lucky enough to have known Billy Mernit, the King of Romcom, for some time. I first met Billy when I enrolled in his Writing the Romantic Comedy at the UCLA Writer's Studio almost 8 years ago. I spent several fantastic days absolutely immersed in the world of romantic comedy.
Later, Billy mentored me through a romcom I had written. I was struck then as I am still, by Billy's impressive, encyclopedic knowledge and frank love of the genre. This guy knows from romcom and he's a born romantic at heart. He also has a fabulous blog Living the Romantic Comedy which is a must for those Rouge Wavers in the midst of or even considering writing a romantic comedy. Heck, it's a must for anyone who likes a good blog, let's face it.
But I digress. Billy and I stayed in touch and he has continued to be the source of advice, support and friendship to me. So I exploited that friendship just for you, Rouge Wavers, and asked Billy if he'd be willing to answer a few questions here on the Rouge Wave. And of course, Billy agreed to generously give of his time. So here, for your entertainment and edification, is a Q&A with Mr. Romcom - Billy Mernit.
Wave-inatrix:
What is your favorite romantic comedy of the past three years and why?
Billy:
40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN got my vote in 2005, and it only looks better on repeated viewings. Crude, lewd, and sometimes tacky in its geek/broad comedy aesthetic it nonetheless reveals, at moments between belly laughs, a tender lovelorn soul. It's got great comedic set-pieces (e.g. hapless Andy's drunk-driver date from hell, that excruciating hair-waxing, et al); the dialogue is consistently sharp and funny; the supports are strong and memorable (Seth Rogen and crew have since become a Preston Sturges-like repertory company for Judd Apatow). And the coupling of Steve Carell and Catherine Keener passes that ultimate rom-com test: as they literally sing and dance their way into the sunset, we believe that these two well-matched lovers will make it as a couple -- and they've earned a life for themselves in our imagination.
Wave-inatrix:
Do you think of KNOCKED UP as a romcom or romcom hybrid? Do you think Apatow has changed the face of modern romcom say compared the Farrelly Brothers with their SOMETHING ABOUT MARY take?
Billy:
I don't see it as a hybrid, unless you really consider the "A" story here to be protagonist Ben's coming-of-age -- which has been an integral through-line of many a male POV romantic comedy for over a decade or two. No, it's straight rom-com with a very strong concept (i.e. boy really "meets" girl after he's already gotten her pregnant). But sure, we've definitely just lived through the Year of Apatow (with SUPERBAD as well and the countless spec script imitations that deluged the studios after KNOCKED UP's success). There's no denying that he's codified -- and made his own -- a trend that's been coming on for some time: male point of view romantic comedies that are often as much about the love between guys as they are about guys getting the girl. Look, explicit sexual humor has been spicing up the genre (and making it more contemporary) for awhile now, with MARY a huge boundary-buster; just look at the phenomenal success of SEX AND THE CITY, which was in a sense a serial (ensemble) rom-com. What Apatow has brought to the equation is a wonderful sort of genuine innocence. What makes his movies work is the real sweetness at the core of his characters and their concerns; the more decent his protagonists are, the raunchier the humor can get. Even this is no reinvention of the genre wheel (see, for example, teen rom-coms like AMERICAN PIE), but Apatow's success with this formula has definitely pushed the genre firmly into the present-day. That said, I do agree with the astute question David Denby put to Apatow in his New Yorker piece on what I call such "macho chick flicks": now that we've wallowed in the world of boy-men for a few years, where are the new strong women -- i.e. the kind of roles that'll let some potential female rom-com stars shine?
Wave-inatrix:
I remember your once describing romcom as the "little black dress" of entertainment meaning that it is a Hollywood staple. But right now, is romcom a good genre for writers trying to break in with in the spec market? Everybody talks about horror being the best genre in terms of both domestic and international box office.
Billy:
So go write a great horror rom-com! Like say, SHAUN OF THE DEAD. That's the "little black dress" effect of this ever-hardy genre: you can combine it with just about anything, and if you do it well, it'll fly. I've seen a plethora of vampire romantic comedy projects over the past few years, and I'll wager one will break out and hit it big. But to answer your question re: the spec market more specifically, what I can tell you is: every studio in town is still looking for good romantic comedies. They're usually cheap to make, they have a built-in demographic (that's expandable), they attract talent -- and they're very good showcases for a fledgling writer's character-driven plot and dialogue chops.
Wave-inatrix:
I think you're addicted to love.
Billy:
Is this being recorded?
Author of the bestselling screenwriting book, Writing the Romantic Comedy (Harper/Collins), BILLY MERNIT teaches half a dozen courses at the UCLA Extension Writers' Program, where he was awarded 2001's Outstanding Screenwriting Instructor of the Year. He also teaches seminars around the country (such as the Santa Fe Screenwriting Conference and at the University of Hawaii) and is regularly a Star Speaker at the Creative Screenwriting Expo in L.A. He is currently a story analyst at Universal Studios, after stints with Sony and Paramount. Billy is currently negotiating with Harper/Collins a "revised and expanded" version of his must-have Writing the Romantic Comedy textbook. His novel "Imagine Me and You" will be published by Random House/Shaye Areheart in April.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
Those are the elegant words of E.M. Forster. And those are also the words I penned on twenty five handmade pre-holiday cards with instructions that each holiday gift should be handmade so that my now ex-inlaw family members (big surprise there) could really connect with each other instead of sending each other ill-fitting green sweaters from Robinsons-May or lame, doily-Hollie-Hobbie-type detritus or more Thomas Kincade coasters. Oh the hubris of a twenty-five year old. Guess what I got for Chanukah?
Every year, we agonize about what to get each other for the holidays. We whip out our credit cards and get online, or worse – oh god, far worse – head to the mall and race from store to store as our blood pressure mounts, throwing things in our baskets knowing in advance that the recipient probably does not need the cranberry-molasses-lemongrass bathsoap and body lotion.
What do you buy for a privileged American who quite honestly has it all? Or conversely, when you think about it – is there anything you truly need that you don’t already have? Is there anything you truly want that you’re not already planning on buying yourself – in the right size, of the right color and brand? Nine times out of ten the answer is no and no.
In the December edition of the Whole Life Times, Lucinda Michele Knapp wrote a piece appropriately titled More Love, Less Stuff and hilariously subtitled: Stop it. Stop it right now. Stop wrapping that crap.
And it got me to thinking about Only connect once more – the earth is warming up faster than a bun in the oven, a meteor is no doubt on a crash course with our planet as I write this, there’s a writer’s strike, the war in Iraq is still gasping hot metal and the only salient question seems to be whether Hilary and Obama will cancel each other out and net us another Republican.
What alternatives are there, really but to live in the now and give gifts that hit the ground running. Here are some of Knapp's suggestions:
The Heifer Project is an organization that distributes livestock to families in developing nations. You can donate through your contribution anything from honeybees to goats, chicken, oxen or cows. The Wave-inatrix has personally done this before, having "purchased" some chickens and contributed to half a goat.
Oxfam America is in the business of doing about the same thing.
Or how about Greendimes, an organization that reduces your junk mail with a Junk Mail Reduction Kit and for every kit you buy, funds the planting of ten trees.
Modest Needs is a charity that with your donations helps families in need deal with emergency situations like an unexpected doctor bill, a huge winter heating bill or a car breakdown that would otherwise put them in crisis. I dare you to look at this website and not plunge your hand into your wallet to pull out a few bucks for a family, for example, who has written that they are in crisis over their heating bill. This is a serious, suck-in-the-breath, geez, how did I blow $100 and not even know it the other day at the Grove when this family can't pay their heating bill?
Kiva sponsors small businesses in the developing world dig their way out of being one of the working poor.
And because seriousness is not my strong suit, sharpen your pencils, Wavers, because here's what the Wave-inatrix wants for Christmas. Only 15 shopping days left!
1) An end to the strike
2) The horrible, evil person who used to have my phone number to just pay their credit card bill already before I have to go to the call center, kick ass and take names.
3) Paris Hilton to take a vow of silence and go to a convent far, far away and never be heard from again except as an obscure but super interesting obituary that one would remark upon quietly in one's old age.
4) For Christian Bale to be nominated for his performance in 3:10 to Yuma.
5) Personal chef.
6) Three words: Ice cream Party
7) A new car. One of those hybrids. But cute.
7a) Okay, a pony. I'll take a pony.
8) An end to the strike
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
Well Wavers, the mailbag is overflowing with requests for a holiday scene competition and the Wave-inatrix is nothing if not accomodating. So here it is:
The Rules:
Write a 1 to 2 page scene set during, thematically and dramatically connected to the holidays. Doesn't have to be Christmas, could be Chanukah or Kwanza. Genre is your choice but the following three words must appear in the scene:
Egg nog
Blizzard
Latke
Writers are limited to two submissions each. Script Department* associates and partners are not eligible. Sorry guys.
Send to the Wave-inatrix in pdf or fd format.
Deadline:
Friday, December 21st by 5pm Pacific Time.
Prizes:
$25 gift certificate to AMC theaters
A copy of Michael Hague's Selling Your Story in 60 Seconds, courtesy of The Great American Pitch Fest
and wow - check this out -
A three month pass to Pitch Perfect, courtesy of the Writer's Store and the Great American PitchFest. This pass allows you to upload your video pitch on their website, along with your contact information, logline, and other information, where it is watched by industry executives. To check it out, please visit Pitch Perfect.
Things are getting serious around here at the Rouge Wave - the heat is on. But Wavers know how passionately the Wave-inatrix feels that writing should be joyful. This is meant to be fun, but darn tootin' you'll receive your prizes promptly and benefit by them all.
Thank you to AMC, The Great American Pitch Fest and The Writer's Store for taking our antics on the Rouge Wave seriously and seeing such potential in our readers.
Let the games begin.
*No, you didn't imagine that. My company changed its name. I'm not gaslighting you. I edited.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
Rouge Waver AJG asked the Wave-inatrix a good question in a comment, that I thought worthy of sharing with all Wavers:
Dear Most Amazing Wave-inatrix - and might I add I love your perfume and your hair looks great*:
What is your favorite produced script and what would you have changed about it (if anything)?
Dear AJG, gosh you make me blush*
My favorite produced script has to be AMERICAN BEAUTY. I read the shooting script and so the movie was famously, subsequently edited so that the courtroom sequence at the top of the script was not used. But I did love that script so much - few scripts can make me cry but that one did. If I had to change one thing, I felt as if every female character on the pages (and resultingly, in the movie) were a bit two-dimensional and not that fully realized. They were types. Bening was a shrill shrew, Ricky's mother was a catatonic housewife, Suvari was an insecure cheerleader and the most fleshed out female, Thora Birch was primarily a goth/angst/typical teen. I think the female parts were variously under and overwritten. But that's just me. Overall it's one of my favorite pieces of writing ever - funny, poignant, wicked and moving.
My favorite in-development script which has Chris Columbus attached, is SLANTED AND ENCHANTED. God I loved that script. So much so that I wrote Ben Queen a fan letter and we subsequently become pen pals. It reminded me just a bit of AB, but has a lovely John Irving feel to it as well. I cannot wait for that movie to hit the big screen. And I wouldn't have changed a thing. Although I shouldn't say that - I did have to cover it for a production company; when I'm feeling less lazy I'll review my notes and see what I said. I hate having to find something when I really have no complaints at all.
Mind you, readers never comment on what *we* would like changed, only on what our BOSS is looking for. Unless the script is patently bad; those coverages are easy to do. Other than that, you're taking a mandate into consideration.
*question altered to protect the identity of the - oh, right, that won't work. Fine. The Wave-inatrix is merely suggesting that asking questions in this way will be cupcake inducing.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
Today I read a script titled after the main character. But as I read the script, I realized he wasn't the main character at all. So why is the script named after him? And worse - who was the main character? I couldn't quite tell.
The other evening as my friend Keith and I played Rummy 500 (final score: Keith 485, Wave-inatrix 415) Keith posed an interesting question to me: Who is the main character in ELECTION? Mathew Broderick, I said. Natch. Ah but no, Keith countered. Reese Witherspoon (Tracy Flick) is the main character. The movie focuses on her and she has a flaw and a character arc.
Puzzled, I asked my friend Billy Mernit what he thought. Billy puzzled for a moment then said "Election's a sticky one because the narration is so evenly split, but it feels (to me) ultimately like the Broderick character's movie."
In this month's Vanity Fair, Francis Ford Coppola, in discussing Youth Without Youth, said that Leonardo Di Caprio once said to him (and I paraphrase) that in order to consider a script "I have to be the guy the movie's about". That sentiment is something that any A-list actor would share with The King of the World.
So as you read the pages of your script ask yourself - is your main character the focal point of the script? Does he or she get most of the page time? Is this a part an actor would love to play? Is it edgy, funny, imaginative and utterly original? Is this character, in other words, a juicy role?
Some stories obviously have dual main characters - romcom is a prime example of that. A romantic comedy is the story of two characters who intersect and change one another. And this concept is not just limited to romcom - MIDNIGHT RUN, with Robert Deniro and Charles Grodin is a movie that immediately comes to mind, which loosely falls into the "buddy movie" category and focuses on both main characters and generates its entertainment value from the dynamic between them.
You may very well have a story with dual main characters and that will still fall within acceptable dramatic parameters. But if that's the case, think twice about the title - don't let one character hog it and appear to be the main character and then be overshadowed by secondary characters.
A clear sense of who and what your movie is about is pivotal when getting a read by an agent, producer or exec. If a reader can't quite grasp who your main character is, chances are you don't either. At the end of the day, every movie is character-driven. So who's your main character?
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
Readers are different from you and I. Well, different from you. Not I. The Wave-inatrix doesn't read boxes of twenty scripts at a time anymore but I do read a good six to eight scripts a week, easily. And something happens when one has to read that kind of volume. Writers on message boards encourage one another to read scripts - and that's damn good advice. But really, one just cannot imagine the sheer volume of reading that has to be done on a daily basis in Hollywood. It changes you.
Have you ever had that weird, mildly crushing, existential feeling of impending death when, at a public place you overhear someone conversing about something totally inane and then you realize it's you talking and you are in fact just like everybody else? And you panic for a moment because you thought you were different?
When one reads boxes and boxes of scripts a pattern becomes clear - and that is that there are truly only a limited number of stories, types of writers and levels of execution. And yes, you get jaded.
Is this just another blog post about how we readers are ever so sophisticated and in-the-know? God, that would be tiresome, wouldn't it? No, readers are just overworked, underpaid struggling writers who just happen to be the janitors in the hallways of production companies, sweeping up the piles of scripts and putting them into some kind of order for rejection or consideration.
No, this is a post to help put things into perspective for aspiring screenwriters. It's a harsh thing to say but if you think you and your script are all that amazing and special and genius - you're wrong. There are a lot of better writers and a lot of better scripts. Whoa - that's an awful thing for the Wave-inatrix to say! Well, it's bracing, isn't it? But think of the worth of the realization that your story is NOT utterly original and freakishly unique. Raises the bar, doesn't it?
Sure, you could believe that your writing is good enough, and deserving of accolades, money and fame - but if you're wrong - and depending on where you are as a writer, you probably are - then how far are you going to get laboring under that misapprehension? Overestimating your writing is an easy trap to fall into. It comes from that strange dichotomy of thinking borne of mixing confidence and stick-to-it-iveness with a fear of failure. Stir that up in a beaker, pour over the crackling, white hot mess that is Hollywood and the steam that arises smells an awful lot like failure and frustration.
So what is a writer to do? Know that writing anything is expiative and transformative and beautiful. But know that getting paid for it is another animal altogether. Know that there are plenty of writers worse - and better - than you. Know that your script can always be better. Know that your writing can, must and will improve. Know that every journey begins with a single step and that if you believe in anything, believe that you love this messed up thing called being a writer. It's bittersweet, it's absolutely awful - and we couldn't imagine doing anything else.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
I don't know about Rouge Wavers, but for all the complaining about crowds, expense and sticky floors, in the Wave-inatrix's opinion, there is nothing like seeing a movie on the big screen, in a theater, with other movie enthusiasts. Seeing a movie is an event. There is a collective excitement and energy when you take in a movie in a crowd. You've all experienced something together; you've taken a journey.
Now, pipe down in the back - yes, theaters are full of Noisy Eaters, Big Heads, Loud Talkers, Late Comers and Fidgeters. I have a friend in Brooklyn who recently told me he is through seeing movies in theaters - it's just too annoying.
More and more, high-def, flat screen and surround sound have made movie viewing at home almost a luxury experience. But is it the same? Or are there some movies that are better watched in the relative quiet and comfort of your living room?
The problem the Wave-inatrix has, is that when I watch a movie on DVD I tend to pause it when the phone rings, when the popcorn's gone cold and the soda's gone flat. I pause, I rewind, I might even go IMDB something mid-movie. I'm not immersed in the experience to nearly the degree that I am in a theater.
Plus, I have many childhood memories of the MGM lion roaring or of course the 20th Century Fox searchlights and music - later in life, of course we now have the Dreamworks bit with the kid sitting on the cloud, fishing. Paramount is elegant but rather silent if I recall. Landmark Theaters had the best ever intro, with "the language of film is universal" in several languages. I love that one. In my favorite theaters here in LA, one has to wait while the red curtains are drawn back, harkening to the golden age of movies when it truly was a luxurious experience to go the movie picture show and newsreels and cartoons were shown.
Yes, times have changed, now we have those stupid cell phone ads, booming ads informing us, to the marrow of our shaken bones that TSX sound is in operation, and theaters that serve large, orange, stinky servings of nachos to - naturally - the guy sitting just to our left.
Does it matter how or where we see movies? Does a movie get a fair shake when you want to smash the hot nacho plate into the crotch of your neighbor? How about when something starts smoking in the microwave there at home and the cat pees on the carpet?
The Landmark Theater at the Westside Pavillion just put in a brand new theater with screening rooms which have low-backed couches and armchairs. Sounds luxurious, no? But actually, it's weird. The audience is seated at strange angles and distances from one another - it's like a bunch of total strangers sat down in your chilly, dark livingroom - and the chairs have such low backs that there are two positions available: stick straight, upright - or entirely horizontal. The Wave-inatrix was not impressed.
There is one time of year when the Wave-inatrix does avoid the theater in the evening and this is right now - the holidays. There is no movie in the world worth dealing with a Saturday evening crowd in December. It simply cannot exist. My favorite time to see movies is matinees; oh, say, 4pm or so, when the thin crowd is mostly movie enthusiasts with a sprinkling of senior citizens. Now mind you, the senior citizens, bless their hearts, do come with some issues: loud coughing, frequent nose-blowing, deaf-compensation talking - what did he say, Myrtle? - and arthritic hands which make the unwrapping of candy painfully slow and loud. But that aside, you have to love the old people. Mostly.
The ArcLight, a famously luxurious theater here in Hollywood has just opened another site in Sherman Oaks and of course, the Westside Landmark is also trying to compete by providing a luxurious experience complete with gift shops, reserved seats, in-house bars and cafes, etc. But the tickets are at a premium. Is movie theater attendance going the way of the dinosaurs? What else will exhibitors have to do to get us to go out in public to watch movies when so much great technology is available in the comfort of your home?
My absolute favorite theater experience is to go to a slightly run-down arthouse theater. Off the beaten track, slightly musty inside, usually only half to a quarter full, with red velvet drapes and broken-down seats with wooden arms. No cupholders, nothing fancy, just decades of showing moving pictures til the laughter and tears have soaked into the very walls and the seats are a bit tired. It is in that atmosphere, of reverent silence, along with the other dedicated film lovers that I most enjoy taking in a movie. I'll take that over the ArcLight or my livingroom any day of the week. Color me old school.
What I do fear, and it's borne out often in local papers, is the demise of the independent movie theater. Family owned movie theaters generally operate at a loss; neighborhoods rally round historic ones but many are unsung and slip under the water with only a blip.
If you live in an area that has them, give locally owned theaters your business - you're not only supporting a non-chain theater, you're also very often supporting independent and foreign films. It won't be long, I suspect, until TSX sound rattling a hot plate of nachos into your lap will become the norm - and we'll all be the poorer for it.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
Happy weekend, Wavers! I have reprinted an interview of ATONEMENT writer Ian McEwan by Deborah Solomon in the New York Times for your weekend enjoyment:
********
Q: Your novel “Atonement” — the story of Briony Tallis, a novelist who tells a lie in her girlhood and hurts her older sister in a way for which she can never atone — has been made into a film, and I was surprised to see that you are the executive producer. Most novelists run from film, afraid that the care they lavished on their prose will be squandered. I know. Well, it will be squandered whether they run or not.
So why are you the executive producer? So I could stay involved but not write the screenplay. I refused to write the screenplay. I didn’t want people sitting around a table — a producer, a director — telling me that I hadn’t fully understood these characters.
The film is bleaker than the novel, perhaps because the human cost of World War II is depicted with such devastating directness. I hope it’s not entirely bleak. It’s a love story. Like all love stories, the love has to be threatened, and in this case, we see that it’s only the novelist who has brought the lovers together. In real life, they have been separated by war.
It seems to me that the impulse to atone is a religious one, and yet you are a self-declared atheist. Yes, I am an atheist, and probably Briony is, too. Atheists have as much conscience, possibly more, than people with deep religious conviction, and they still have the same problem of how they reconcile themselves to a bad deed in the past. It’s a little easier if you’ve got a god to forgive you.
Not necessarily. Faith in itself is not easy to sustain. Well, we won’t get into that.
Your own life has not lacked for dramatic plot. Just a few years ago you discovered you had an older brother whom you’d never met, a bricklayer. Are you in touch with him? Oh, absolutely, yes. Most months we talk, or have a drink, or sometimes some food in a pub.
He was born before your parents married and put up for adoption with a newspaper ad. Did he like his adoptive parents? Fortunately he was very loved as a child. He was really cherished. It’s not clear to me that he would have a better life or a worse life had he been kept.
And now you have two grown sons of your own. They’re much nicer to me than I was to my parents. I was managed as a child. I don’t think anyone ever said to me, “Are you happy?” I was once on a plane flying from North Africa back to boarding school in England, and a man sat next to me and said, “Do you believe in God?” For the next two hours he engaged me in a conversation about God. I was only 10. I was absolutely thrilled to be taken so seriously by a grown-up.
You were probably already a nonbeliever. No, I was just beginning to see through it all, but not quite.
Your fellow novelist
Which ideas do you mean? Well, the idea that any apostate should be punished is revolting. This is completely hostile to the notion of free thought and everything we hope to stand for. I think Martin has suffered terribly at the hands of The Guardian.
Novelists are bigger personalities in England than they are here. Really? You just had
True, but he was probably the last American novelist who was known as much for his antics as for his writing. Boxing and writing were wonderfully confused in his mind.
Are you working on a new novel? Yes.
Can you tell us what it is about? No, it’s too soon. I don’t even tell myself yet.
Is it set in the present? Broadly. Now you’ve ruined it. I’ll have to come up with a new one.
If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.
