I've been pushing ahead fast on the new book, averaging 12 pages a day for the last few days. I hit the real action part of the book this morning -- the first half is setting the scene, introducing the characters, giving readers a sense that something bad is going to happen -- then the second half is slam-bang-thank-you-ma'am action!! It's not the most cerebral of my books, but then again it's not designed to be -- I think this is going to be quite a long series, and I'll spin off into weirder areas, and more convoluted plot twists, later. I want the first book to serve as a fast-paced hook, to drag readers kicking and screaming into the heart of the story, and then spiral off from there. The grand plan is to jerk the rug from under readers in almost every book, to show parts of the overall plot each time, lead them in one direction, then throw a curved ball at them. Things were pretty straightforward in my vampire and demon series -- the rules were set early on, and everything played out according to those rules. This time round, I don't want readers to know who to trust or what to believe -- it's going to be paranoia central!!!!

I've also been busy answering lots of fan mail. I tend to get more than usual at this time of the year. I've worked my way through most of the latest pile, but Pablo has already told me that another pile has been building up quickly! As always, if you've sent a letter to me, I ask for your patience -- I DO always reply, but it normally takes quite a while.

Saw a very intriguing film this afternoon -- Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. It was one of the more original flicks I've seen in quite a while, very different to any other film, dark and twisted. It's perhaps a little bit longer than it need be, but it sucked me in and held me all the way. I'm sure lots of people don't and won't like the fact that the central character is so alien and unlikeable, but I found it a fascinating dip into a very warped person's mind, and those sorts of trips always capture my fancy. Strongly recommended for older viewers who like movies which stray from conventional ideas of what a story should be and how it should be told.

That actually ties in quite neatly with an email from a fan called Chloe which I got last week. She wrote:

In your blogs, it is interesting to see you advise people on the terms of writing in general. Myself, I would like to be a writer but my style is very different; I write surrealistically, and occasionally use such things as present tense or second person which have a tendency to put people off! I do not want to sacrifice my style, but I worry that if I ever get anything published, as I would like to, it would have to be in a more orthodox format, because new things generally seem to be looked on in a more negative light than using a traditional style. Is my interpretation of this correct, do you think, or am I considering something that is impossible to predict?

I think this is a very well judged observation. In my experience the world of publishing is a two-faced beast. On the one hand, almost every publisher who holds forth on this matter will say they're always looking for fresh talent, new ideas, writers with a unique voice who can come up with original stories. On the other hand, from a cold hard business angle, they're always looking for the NEXT. The NEXT Stephen King, the NEXT J K Rowling, the NEXT Darren Shan ... whatever!! Publishers know that it's very difficult to convince people to take a chance on something new, something different, something not like anything they've read before. It's far easier to tap into an existing audience: "You like Author X? Then try this new guy -- he's just like X!!!"

As I've mentioned quite a few times before, Cirque Du Freak was turned down by pretty much every major publisher in the UK (along with quite a few not-so-major publishers) before it was accepted. Different editors had different reasons for turning it down, but an overriding factor was that there was nothing like CDF out there. Horror for children was a relatively new concept, and the few authors who'd explored it (R L Stine and Christopher Pike chief among them) had done so in a very different way to me. I was writing about circus freaks, a kid who steals and lies, who gets buried alive, who makes a blood pact with a vampire. Publishers didn't know how people would react, and so, not knowing, they chose not to take a chance on it. It makes me smile when some of those publishers now play up a few of their new authors with "The next Darren Shan!" tag line. But I'm not in the least bit bitter about it. That's just the way the industry works and I'm fully aware of it. You don't get far having a thin skin in the writing business. Publishers need to make money in order to keep publishing. They're not mind-readers. They can't always predict trends in advance. Most of the books they put out, they know how they're going to perform, roughly how many copies they're going to sell. But every so often a freak comes along that shatters all the rules. In those cases, publishers try to cash in and ride the coat-tails of that author -- hence all the fantasy books being published since Harry Potter took off.

So -- you're a young writer, starting out. Do you study the market and go with something you know will appeal to publishers? Or do you follow your instinct, write the stories you WANT to write, and hope you sneak in through the cracks and start a new trend? To be honest, I can't answer that question. Each writer must decide that for themselves. I know, WAY back, when I was 18 or 19, there was a publisher I sent a few of my very early books to. The editor there was very generous with her time, and responded with actual suggestions and comments (as opposed to a standard rejection letter, which is what most reply with). My work back then was much more experimental than most of my published work. I'm like an ice berg -- a lot of my work is hidden under water! My published output is only about half of what I've actually written over the years. I've written all sorts of books, hardcore sci-fi, sexually explosive psychological horrors, futuristic fantasies, road trip stories, even a few funny books!!

The editor said to me that if I stopped being so experimental, using different voices and tenses and story structures ... that if I just wrote a straightforward thriller or fanasy tale ... I'd get published. That was very encouraging for me -- but the trouble was, I didn't WANT to write that way. To me, writing has always been about the stories, doing them justice, going with wherever my mind leads me. If I'd wanted to make money, I'd have gone into another line of work. I wrote for pleasure and self-satisfaction. I wanted to be successful of course -- but only by doing my own thing. I didn't want to write to please an editor -- I wanted to write to please myself.

So I did. I kept on experimenting and trying different things and going in weird directions. Some of the books I worked on didn't lead anywhere and proved (for the time being at least) unpublishable. Some were Cirque Du Freak and Lord Loss and they went on to do very nicely indeed. But all were close to my heart. I was true on all of them. I wrote each one because I wanted to write it, because it demanded to be written. I hope they'd find readers, but if not ... so be it.

Now, I don't know if I could have stuck to my guns indefinitely. If I'd gone ten year, fifteen, twenty, without finding an audience, without making any money ... would I have continued? Would I have flogged a dead horse until I died, broke and bitter and beaten? As I say, I don't know, but I like to think I WOULD have. I like to think I'd have stood by my muse no matter what, for better or worse. The thing about writing is, books can sometimes flourish after you're dead -- some writers are only "discovered" years after their death. I like to think I would have clung to that sense of self-belief no matter what, that if the market had proved hostile, I would have ploughed on regardless, doing my own thing, hoping my stories would find more favourable ears in the hands of later generations. Every writer has that chance, that hope, no matter how bad things get.

But what's better -- to struggle on in the vain hope that your work will be appreciated when you're dead? Or to adjust and adapt to the market of your own times, give editors what they want, make a name for yourself while you're still alive to enjoy it? In an ideal world, you get both, like I have, like Stephen King did, like a small percentage of writers always have done and always will do. But many writers aren't so lucky. The time isn't right. The breaks don't go their way. The editor who might have changed their lives is off sick when their manuscript comes in, and somebody else reads it and tosses it away. I do believe that if you work hard and keep plugging away, your quality WILL show, and you'll enjoy the success of writing work you can be proud of, and work that other people (to some extent or other) will enjoy. But sometimes great writers DO go unloved. Sometimes cool story-tellers never sell the number of copies they should. Sometimes staying true to yourself means settling for less than those who play the game get.

It all boils down to what you want from your writing. Do you want to be adored and feted, sell millions and make a fortune? Or do you want to follow your dream and remain true to it, no matter what?

Well??????