The Austen Industry Event – revelation.

There had been chatter earlier this week that this event might be too “Austen fluffy”; that despite my pride in being asked to chair a panel comprised  of Claire Harman, Deborah Moggach and Gurinder Chadha there might be prejudice against the author of the set-texts on so many school curricula around the world.

So employing some sense while being aware of the sensibility of the occasion, I thought I would introduce an edgy theme and set about the task with electrified relish.

Oh fool that I am. But in my defence, how could I know that the author of Jane’s Fame – How Jane Austen Conquered the World would herself introduce themes that included the role of Austen’s work in the defence of fetishist pornography? I could tell you of this man’s felled spark.

The big secret that I mentioned in an earlier post, is that in the remarkably short time available I’d not only managed to contact the publisher of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (the classic Regency Romance — now with ultraviolent zombie mayhem), the latest, smash hit Austen outing, but through the incredibly helpful Melissa Monachello there, had been able to field a few brief questions to Jason Rekulak – the Editorial Director of publisher Quirk Books – and to Seth Grahame-Smith – the author. That they were so comprehensive and speedy in their replies is due entirely to Melissa M’s powers of persuasion.

So without further ado, without leaving you on a cliff-hanger badly, so to speak, the following is the entire Q & A email that dropped into my inbox. My thanks to Melissa M, Jason R and Seth G-S to whom I am extremely grateful. Needless to say, ‘emma’ fan. (right, is that all six novels mentioned? I think so, so that’s quite enough of that – Ed)

1. Paul Blezard – How did the concept of Jane Austen and zombies as a ‘fusion fiction’ first come about?

From Jason Rekulak, editorial director:

I’d always wanted to do a mash-up of a famous literary novel – I thought it would be funny to do a “new and improved” version of a classic that kids are forced to read in high school.  So I made a list of classic novels that were published before 1923 (these are all safely in public domain).  Then I made a second list of elements which could enhance these novels –pirates, ninjas, robots, monkeys, and so forth.  Then I started to connect entries on the two columns with lines. When I drew a line between “Pride and Prejudice” and “Zombies,” I knew I had my title, and it was really easy to envision how the book could work.  I was forced to read P&P in high school, and I’d seen “Dawn of the Dead” a dozen times, so it was easy to imagine how a funny writer could merge elements of both.  So then I called the funniest writer I knew—Seth Grahame-Smith—and we were off and running.

2. Paul Blezard –  What (if any) responsibility was there felt to be in approaching the works of such a global literary ‘brand’ with such an idea.

From Jason Rekulak, editorial director:

Our responsibility to Austen was to stay true to her original plotline. The book is about 85% of Austen’s original text and 15% zombies. To be honest, Quirk wasn’t sure how the public would react to adding zombies to one of Austen’s most beloved works. There have definitely been criticisms to what we have done, but it seems most people truly do enjoy the zombie mayhem—and on a global scale. The book has been translated into 17 languages. At the same time, we feel we have introduced others to her work. Over and over, we’ve heard people say, “I would never read Austen.  But ‘Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?’ I could get into reading this version!”

3. Paul Blezard – What does it speak of Austen’s value that Pride and Prejudice was the work selected for zombie-addition?

From Jason Rekulak, editorial director:

Austen is probably one of the most popular deceased author of the past two decades. Her books have been made into various movies and miniseries. Even Austen herself has become the subject of movies and books. So yes, we knew that” Pride and Prejudice” had a built-in audience. However, as I had said we weren’t sure if we were going to completely alienate the Austen fans. Some Austen fans were appalled by what we did, and others had a sense of humor about it.

4. Paul Blezard – Why/how was Seth chosen as the writer?

From Jason Rekulak, editorial director:

Seth is the funniest writer that I know. He had written a few books for Quirk before, most notable How to Survive a Horror Movie. Seth was already in tune with the horror crowd and had a wealth of knowledge when it came to zombies. He seemed like a natural fit.

5. Paul Blezard – What were his thoughts on i) being approached to write it and ii) tackling the challenge.

From Seth Grahame-Smith:

Jason Rekulak was the only editor I’d ever worked with. Over the course of four books, we’d exchanged hundreds of calls and thousands of emails. We’d established something of an electronic shorthand. So when I heard him say, “Hey Seth, it’s Jason,” I knew something was up at once. There was a restlessness in his voice. This was no “I need another 500 words to fill some space” call. This was the voice of a man possessed, a man struck by a lightning bolt of inspiration.

“OK. . . . I just need you to listen,” he began. “Just listen, and tell me if I’m crazy. All I have is a title. It’s just a title—but I can’t stop thinking about it. Just promise me you’ll wait a minute before you say anything, OK?”

I promised. The next words out of his mouth were Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

I broke my promise. I didn’t wait a minute. I didn’t need to. He’d barely finished the word zombies before my head was flooded with images of aristocrats being eaten alive; of the Bennet girls flying around Crouching Tiger style; of Mr. Darcy riding into battle atop his mighty steed, his glorious chestnut mane awash in musket smoke. My loins began to quiver as I imagined the joy of writing ridiculous, gratuitous scenes of violence and gore in the imitated style of Jane Austen. And the blood . . . oh, the blood. I told him it was the most brilliant idea I’d ever heard. I meant it. I was hooked.

We talked for an hour or so, excitedly trading ideas about tone, style, and body count. That afternoon, as I began rereading the original (it’d been years since I struggled through it in high school), Jason began the prodigious task of convincing his publishing executives to say yes. For a while, it seemed like he and I were the only two people on the planet who thought this was a brilliant idea.

After rereading the original, I re-reread it, making notes in the margins, jotting down ideas, and working out the logistics of weaving a zombie uprising into one of the most celebrated novels in the English language. If I changed something in Chapter 6, what were the consequences in Chapter 56? What were these new zombie sequences going to be, and how could I evenly distribute them throughout the book? What kind of zombies were these? Where did they come from? What were Elizabeth’s abilities? Where was she trained? Would any of this work, or were we just kidding ourselves?

Once I had most of these logistics worked out, I opened the original manuscript on my computer (thank you, Internets), and set about changing words, adding lines, and inserting all-new scenes—one bloody page at a time. In order to keep track of my changes, I made the new text red (seemed appropriate). Sometimes there’d be two- or three-page blocks of all-new, all-red action. Sometimes there’d be a red paragraph or a few red lines on a mostly black page. Sometimes, there was only a red word or two. As I wrote, I constantly zoomed out to view the manuscript as a whole, judging my success by how much red I’d left behind. My self-imposed rule was to change something on every page, no matter what.

I worked seven days a week, usually until two or three o’clock in the morning—almost always with Nine Inch Nails’s Ghosts I–IV or a Jerry Goldsmith score blaring in my earbuds for inspiration. When I turned in the manuscript on July 31, 2008, I curled up on the floor and wept. OK, not really. But suffice it to say, it was the most fun I’ve ever had writing in my life, and I was sorry to see it end.

From Melissa Monachello, publicity manager:

I would like to add one last thing if you see it fit. Quirk is announcing the follow up to “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” on July 15th at www.quirkclassics.com. It will be another work of classic literature paired with a monster. That’s all I can tell you. Thanks!

PB.

Once again, if you have been, thank for reading!

Jake Arnott & Paul Blezard in conversation.

Shortly after Jake Arnott’s event with Rupert Smith in the Purcell Room on Friday the 3rd July, Paul Blezard sat with him in the green room to discuss the event, the book and Jake’s writing. Here’s what they said:

PB            How did the event go?

JA            It was a fantastic event, really good. The Purcell Room is a lovely place to talk about books and Rupert Smith, who was interviewing me, made everything work so well. I had a really good time.

PB            How did people react to a story in which we have “The Beast” Aleister Crowley and this fantastic character Hector Macdonald, who I hitherto had known nothing about?

JA            Well the interesting thing about Macdonald is that he had tremendous fame in his lifetime but because of the terrible homosexual scandal he was embroiled in he was wiped off the face of history. He was a crofter’s son from the Highlands of Scotland who rose through the ranks after being a soldier in the Gordon Highlanders. He fought in every major conflict in the high Victorian Empire period and was a complete military hero that we should all know about. But the scandal of his sexuality really brought him down. He had a very hidden life, which makes him the perfect character for a novel as it allowed me to invent a complete interior life for him. I think the audience really engaged with that aspect of the story.

PB             It’s a very fine novel, Jake, to my mind the finest writing thus far in your already stellar career. Is it actually a novel tho’ or is it a historical fiction? Where indeed does the border between the two exist for you?

JA            I think the difference is that in a novel one is allowed to go to places that one can’t as a biographer. Of course, a comprehensive biography of Hector Macdonald would be fantastic but completely impossible as he didn’t leave many papers behind. He didn’t write a journal for example and he wrote very few letters. He was a very repressed man, such a close-knit character, because of the nature of his sexuality in the world he inhabited. I think it’s a bit like Shakespeare’s histories. There are obviously all these real characters in a Shakespearean history, but it’s the author – here I am comparing myself with Shakespeare! – it’s not so much that they’re histories however but the attitude of the writer that is the key. It’s a political area. The history in The Devil’s Paintbrush exists between the cracks in the paving stones of creativity as I did have to make up a lot of material, that’s why I consider it a novel. That’s why it is a novel, there’s a lot of speculation.

PB             In your acknowledgements you give thanks to another author of note, Stephanie Theobald (for three years the Society Editor of Harper’s Bazaar and author of  four novels: Trix, Sucking Shrimp, Biche and A Partial Indulgence) not least for her first hand account of a black mass in Paris. How did this come about?

JA            Stephanie is my partner and yes, she is a fantastic writer. She’s spent a lot of time in Paris, it’s her city really, so when I was setting a story there I felt indebted to her knowledge of the demi-monde of that world that still very much exists. The interesting thing is that the occult, and Satanism particularly, is still quite fashionable in Paris. It seems to be part of that tradition – from Catherine de Medici to Huisman, the decadent period – that they have a particular way of understanding that hidden world.

PB             Finally, what does it mean to you as a writer to have participated at the 3rd London Literature Festival?

JA             Well I think it’s fantastic that it’s happening, It’s so good  that London, the most literary city in the Universe, now has this. The capital’s a hard place to have a literary festival in as there’s always so much going on and also there’s something slightly jaded about Londoners, everyone seems to be an itinerant writer of some sort or another and not that willing to go and see people like me talking about their books. All that seems to be changing now though. Up until now the South Bank wouldn’t have been able to put this on in the way that it has and the ‘new look’ South Bank has really made itself the home of a festival with a true heart. Everything is so well done and I’m so glad to be a part of it.

PB             My second ‘final’ question; What are you working on now?

JA            It’s another historical thing. This will be mid 20th century… It’s hard for me to talk about it because it’s still… you know I really don’t want to talk about it, Paul… do you mind?.. is that…?

PB (interrupting to rescue JA from a conversation he clearly doesn’t want to have!)   …then let’s not. I understand. Jake Arnott thank you so much for your time and many congratulations, both on the publication of The Devil’s Paintbrush and on a such a good event here at the London Literature Festival.

Day the Third… let the chairing commence!

Day three at LLF and the anniversary of the birth of a nation to boot. How fitting that this evening the festival hosts one of the supreme all-American heroes, Buzz Aldrin.

After a Friday that saw the day job as Literary Editor of The Lady magazine segue into a sweltering train journey to Oxford to host the launch of Oxfams’s Oxfest  – and the publication of Ox-Tales, a four volume collection of stories by 38 great writers that feature here on the 14th July – I finally returned to the South Bank mid-evening to catch the end of Jake Arnott’s superb event discussing his latest novel “The Devil’s Paintbrush.” A hugely talented man is Mr Arnott, not only as a writer and storyteller but also in giving voice to his own work. I managed to catch a few minutes with him after the event and will transcribe and post the conversation we had later this morning.

But to the work of chairing. I was saying in a previous post about the importance of ‘open’ questions. It’s more of a guideline than a rule as any good conversation has to be flexible to make room for the digressions and culs-de-sac that make such interactions so fascinating. Having read the books and done the research, the trick, for me at least, is to slightly forget it all.

There’s a temptation to script a list of questions that you’d like to ask, to have a safety net that will take you through your allotted time. There is of course nothing wrong with this, but it can lead to an overly formulaic, stilted event where the ‘life’ part of the live performance aspect is sacrificed and squashed in order to get to the last question you’d originally thought of. If there’s an element of investigative journalism inherent in the event then of course that must take precedence but if there isn’t it can be interesting to author and audience alike to go with the conversation and see where it leads. It often leads to the author making new observations about their work or indeed life in general.

How does that work? Simple, you ask your first question and in the answer to it will be the seed of the next question. It can feel a little like a high wire act without a harness, but when it works it’s really worth the risk. Now I just have to apply all this to the event with Alexander Masters and Clare Mulley at 1 o’clock. I hope to see you there.

Happy birthday America, have a lovely day and enjoy today’s fantastic events.

The mouth is the muscle…

As written so excellently by Paul below, last night was the launch party that kick started the incredibly exciting London Literature Festival. We enjoyed homemade scotch eggs and miniature ice creams whilst the Southbank buzzed with summertime activity outside.

Jayga Rayn, Adele Morse, Lisa Dwan and Paul Blezard

Jayga Rayn, Adele Morse, Lisa Dwan and Paul Blezard

Out of the numerous interesting people I met, Lisa Dwan was certainly a highlight. On the 7th and 8th of July she’ll be performing Samuel Beckett’s Not I, a highly anticipated event in the LLF calender, and she kindly invited me to observe one of two rehearsals today in the Purcell Room. I won’t divulge too much information on the technicalities but it was fascinating to observe Lisa and director Jude Kelly, aided by Rachel Holmes, going to great lengths to ensure that Lisa’s mouth is perfectly lit by a single beam of light emerging from the darkness. Having watched a run through of the 20-minute monologue, I can’t recommend this event highly enough.

Rachel Hunt and Jude Kelly at the rehearsal for 'Not I'

Rachel Holmes and Jude Kelly at the rehearsal for 'Not I'

In other news, the flyers for Where To? are hot off the press (literally, my legs were covered in green ink after fondly cradling a pile). We have one week until the show, so tomorrow I’ll be shoving flyers at as many people as possible at The Wedding and Mashing the Classics, whilst taking photos of the shows and getting some audio interviews for here. Both are free events, so come along, and if you see a girl juggling her camera and microphone with a large pile of brightly coloured flyers please take one; I’m sure the ink is dry by now.

Our very lovely flyer

Our very lovely flyer

Paul Blezard on today’s bloggers meeting.

As the excitement builds and the weeks of fevered, expectant anticipation come to an end with the start of the festival on Thursday, the final meeting for bloggers took place at the South Bank this lunch time and a whole new word was coined.

Susie Feay, that doyenne of literature, the former Literary Editor of the Independent on Sunday no less, was responsible. We were each asked to introduce ourselves to the assembled group and having outlined her career SF went on to say that she is also a “Chairer” at the festival. “A Chairer?” various voices queried. I thought about it and realised that I rather liked it, so chipped in a quick defence along the lines of “Work… Worker. Chair… Chairer.”

So you’ve heard (or indeed read) it here first. The correct term for a person that chairs events at a literary festival is a Chairer and Susie Feay invented it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers