I started editing the page proofs of Hell's Horizon (my next D B Shan book) today. By this stage an author shouldn't have much to do on the book -- if all has gone according to plan, you should merely be on the lookout for small errors or printing typos. If you find yourself wanting to make important alterations at this point, you've probably let the book go to print too soon!! That happened to me on Ayuamarca when it was first published. I was still learning how to edit a book, and when it went to the proofs stage, there were still a lot of things I wanted to change in it. The trouble is, once you get to the proofs part of the process, changes are costly and difficult to implement, so the book had to be published flawed. These days I have a much firmer control on my work, and I make sure I do enough edits before the book has to be proofed, so that I'm completely happy with everything. I'm happy to report that I've found nothing of note to change in the proofs of Hell's Horizon, bar one or two extremely minor things. It's always a relief (for me anyway) when you realize you have nothing left to do on a book, that you can put it aside at last and move on. I'm sure some writers feel a sense of loss, that they don't want to let go; you can get so wrapped up in a novel that it can be scary to finally finish with it -- but since I always have several books on the go at the same time, I'm never faced with a "What the hell will I do next?!?" scenario, so I'm always delighted when work wraps, as it leaves me free to go on to something fresh!!!

I received an email last week from a librarian named Melanie in Arizona which made me smile:

Three years ago I sent you the email below about visiting my school. I was a new librarian and didn't know much about you or your books, only that the kids requested that I ask you to come visit. Now with the past three years experience, I know how hugely popular you and your books are. They're always flying off the shelves. I am now a fan too.

Well...... I'm so excited to say that through perseverence, you are scheduled to come to Shepherd on October 29th!!!!!! I'm thrilled and my students are ecstatic. If we can do any thing to make your visit be just perfect, please let me know.

I always tell people who are interested in trying to arrange a Darren Shan event that it's by no means an impossible task. I tour a LOT, and I'm always willing to go to places where there's a demand. While it's not possible to respond positively to every request that comes in (I'd need 3 or 4 times the number of days in a year to do that!!), if you're organised, and determined, and keep trying, you CAN get me -- and Melanie is proof of that!!! I do what I can to help you guys. I make myself accessible, I provide links for my publicists, I give you tips on how to approach them and what they're looking for. But ultimately you've got to do a lot of the ground work yourself, seize the initiative and make things happen.

Back home after my week at the Edinburgh Festival. Like every year, the time flew by -- I always get there, start making plans for each day, and worry that time will drag, that I'll get bored of shows and comedy routines, and that I won't enjoy myself. But every year I get sucked into the magic of the Festival and end up wishing I could have stayed a few days more!! I'm exhausted, to be sure -- I pack a lot in when go there, probably more than I should -- but already I'm missing it and looking forward to the madness of next August when I'll hopefully be returning once again ...

Saw lots of goos plays and comedians over the last few days, along with a few weaker efforts. We saw Andrew Maxwell twice, MCing multi-comedian line-ups, and like last year, he was hilarious, one of the best comedians I've seen at work in a live situation. I've never caught a full show of his, but hopefully I'll set that right next year if he's doing another run. Paul Merton Improv and Ed Byrne were both fun, but ... I dunno ... they've both been around for a long time now, and while they're still funny, they don't feel as fresh as they used to. I think it's very hard for a comedian to maintain their edge for a long run of time, the same way it's hard for bands to sustain a career over 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. If you're good, and lucky, you get several hot, career-defining years, and then you either fade away swiftly or tip along at a nice, even pace like Merton or Byrne -- their shows were sell-outs, but attended largely by the sort of quieter, more discrete audience members that they would have made fun of in their prime. Comedy's really a young man's game -- I think that the truly great comics are those who are still fighting to secure their place, who have to work hard to get an audience on their side. Once you establish yourself, it's difficult to invest your gigs with the sort of energy and imagination that every great show needs.

One comedian who has no problem staying out there on the edge is Jerry Sadowitz. The foullest mouth in comedy, a man who has been shunned by television, his show is a unbelievably fast and furious rant at the world. He attacks everyone equally, all races, all religions, all heroes. He plays the part of the bigot to perfection. Some think he isn't playing, that this is how he really is. I dunno. Maybe he is. But I don't think so. A lot of what he says strikes home. He highlights the hypocrisies of the modern world, the way we buy a lot of what we believe simply because we think it's the way we SHOULD believe. Sadowitz shocks and offends, certainly, but he makes you think too. Does he go too far? Indisputably. But I think comedy needs him, someone who will never compromise, who won't play the game, who'll say whatever the hell he wants to. It helps that he's funny (and he really is -- if you ignore the content of his act, and just focus on his delivery, he's one of the best performers you'll ever see), but I don't think that someone this offensive could still be drawing large crowds after 25 or so years in the business unless there was more to his act than simple racist rants. A lot of people dismiss Sadowitz out of hand, but I think he's like Lenny Bruce -- a comedian who might be hated by many, but who'll be remembered long after he's gone. He's a damn fine close-up magician too!!!

A young comedian who's building nicely to his prime is Andrew Lawrence. We saw him a couple of years ago, when he first came to Edinburgh, and were very impressed. He was even better this year. If he keeps improving, he should be blistering hot in another year or two -- my advice is to catch him now, before he mellows out and starts playing huge venues to middle-aged crowds of polite punters!!

Anyway, the good, bad and indifferent all came to an end this morning, when we went to see a horror show for kids called Echo Chamber (I saw it a few years ago, but couldn't remember much about it, so I fancied catching it again). Then we caught a taxi to the airport and flew home. As I said above, I'm feeling very tired right now, and I can't wait to hit the sack. But it was a fab, fun, fascinating week. Edinburgh delivered the goods, as it always does, and I'm already making my plans for what I want to see there in 2009 ...

My event went nice and smoothly. I enjoyed reading the extracts. I think the book 8 scene might become a regular staple of my routine, and possibly (to a lesser extent) the extract from the book of my 4 book series, but I doubt if I'll do the book 9 scene too many more times -- it was hard to put it in context for those who hadn't read the books. It was an almost full tent -- close to 500 people -- my biggest crowd yet in Edinburgh, I think!!! Signed for more than two and a half hours afterwards. I think everyone went away happy -- I know I certainly did!!!! Since then I've been enjoying the Fringe, seeing lots of comedians and shows. The standouts have included a new show called Crocosmia, which literally moved me to tears, and then made me beam with delight -- a wondrous little gem of a play!! Russell Kane did a very funny hour of stand-up. Another show called The New Electric Ballroom moved me far more than I thought it would. 66a Church Road was another fab one-man play by the ever-reliable Daniel Kitson. I also went to see a double-act show which included Kristen Schaal, the lady who plays Gertha Teeth in the Cirque Du Freak movie -- it was very funny! The next day I spotted Kristen in the Pleasance courtyard, so I went up to say hello. She knew who I was as soon as I introduced myself and we had a nice, short chat. She said she'd loved the filming, and had had a great time. She also said Chris Kelly is excellent as Darren, that he's been a real find. Then she turned round to show me what she was wearing -- a Cirque Du Freak hoodie from the film!!!! I walked away with a BIGGGGG grin on my face!!!!!! Right, I'm off to catch my next show -- toodle-oo!!!!!

Flew over to Edinburgh yesterday (thank heavens for the direct Shannon to Edinburgh route -- it used to be a right pain for me to get up here in earlier years!) and went straight into Festival mode. After checking into our hotel and chilling out for a while, we went to see Absolution, by Owen O'Neill. He's one of my favourite festival performers, and this was a first-rate show. The subject matter was VERY dark -- it was about a guy on a mission to kill child-abusing priests -- but it was masterfully handled. A great start to our stay!! After that we met with Geraldine, my publicist, and had a tasty meal in Gusto (good pizzas!!!). Then Bas and I went to see Josie Long, a comedian who has received great reviews over the last few years. It was a nice show, but nothing spectacular, and I came away feeling disappointed. But after that we hit a Best of the Fest show, featuring a variety of comedians, and that was brilliant! They were all good, but Andrew Maxwell and Adam Hills were especially excellent, and Nina Conti and her swearing puppet were fascinating, much darker than I expected them to be! It was a late night -- it was after 2 in the morning before we got to bed -- so we slept in, then got up and went to see a children's show called Heartbreak Soup, about a boy who is getting his second heart transplant. It was uneven -- I didn't really feel involved for much of the show -- but the ending was lovely and I came away thinking about it, which is always a good thing. Now I'm off to do my own event -- which, needless to say, will be the highlight of the entire festival for everyone involved!!!!! :-)

Spent the last couple of days fine-tuning my Edinburgh extracts, tightening them up as much as possible. I never read out an entire scene from any of my books -- I always edit them down for greater impact. Reading a piece of work out live is very different to reading it to yourself from a book. Ideally an extract should work as well for someone with no knowledge of your work as it does for hardcore fans. That's one of the reasons my CDF and Lord Loss scenes work so well -- since they come from the first few chapters of their respective books, people listening don't need to know anything about the books at all to appreciate them. Given that I'm going to be reading from books 8 and 9 of a series this time round, it isn't going to be possible to make these particular scenes work as well, but I've whittled them down to their bare essentials, so they should hopefully be accessible to most of the people, including those who've never read any of the books and know nothing about me.

Performing -- i.e. reading out loud to an audience -- is very different to writing, and I think that's why a lot of writers struggle in a live situation. They think that if they simply read out an entire passage from their book, they've done enough. In truth, that's rarely the case, although most audiences will act as if it is. People in the book world (I'm including readers here as well) tend to be a very polite bunch, and I'm sure audience members sit very quietly at virtually all author readings, listen attentively, and clap at the end. It's not like live stand-up, where a comedian will get heckled if they don't do enough to entertain. But I think it should be. I think a lot of author events are very boring, because nobody ever tells the authors that they're BEING boring!!! Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind! I think author readings can be funny, exciting, thrilling, scary -- all the things, in short, that the books themselves can be. At the best author events I've been to, the authors bring the stories alive and act them out and create the sort of atmosphere you can get at a concert or at a really good play. It's not exactly the same, but close. At others they simply drone on, and everyone responds politely, and I find myself stifling my yawns.

Not every writer is suited to a live environment. Many are better off sticking to the shadows, only doing press interviews or signings. There's no reason a writer SHOULD be good at performing live, since writing is a very solitary, anti-social affair. A lot of writers aren't confident reading out live in front of an audience, and I don't think pressure should be put on them to do anything they aren't happy to do. But if you DO make the decision to put yourself up in front of a crowd, I think you need to do your best to make it as entertaining as you can, to give them value for money (even if, as at many of my events, they're actually not being charged anything to come in!!). If you're going to play the game, play it as well as you can! I'm lucky in that I enjoy performing live, and have done since my very first event. I'm not a very social person in day-to-day life -- I'm quite shy, and I find it hard to make casual conversation, even with long-time friends, never mind strangers!!! Sometimes people who've just met me think I'm being aloof and unfriendly, but that's not the case -- I just often find it very hard to make connections and carry my end of a chat. I'm fine on certain subjects, like travel, art, books, films. But if I don't make an immediate connection with someone who shares the same tastes as me, I struggle -- and sometimes struggle big time!!! But, oddly, I'm totally relaxed in my "role" as Darren Shan. I sort of slip into an act when I get up in front of a crowd, and "become" a public-speaking author. I'm very theatrical and at ease, I joke around, I love reading out -- I have fun!!!

That makes it fairly easy for me, and I see touring as a natural part of my job. But even so, I try to put a lot of work into preparing for events, to keep things fresh, both for myself as well as for the audience -- but not doing exactly the same thing all the time, I stay interested in the material I perform live, and I like to think that shines through. I think you need to do that if you're a touring author, especially in this day and age. I'm always conscious of the fact that there are so many other things people could be doing rather than sitting in a tent or hall at one of my public events -- they could go to the cinema, a concert, the theatre, a comedy show, just sit at home and play a computer game... I genuinely appreciate the effort people make to come see me, and I do the best I can to reward that effort, to give them the most I can from my readings. It would be easy to just pick a chapter and read it out "as is" -- but that would be doing fans a disservice. You guys are entitled to a good show, and I think you should always demand it -- there's nothing wrong with a bit of politeness, but not if it leads to boredom!!!!

Anyway, what I'm saying, in short, is that I've done my best to make this a cracking good show, so I hope all of you coming have a good time. If you don't, please feel free to boo and throw rotten vegetables at me!!!!!!

Yesterday I sat down at my PC and settled on the three extracts that I'm going to read out at the Edinburgh Festival later this month. For those who are coming, the exciting news is that I'm going to be treating you not to one world exclusive reading ... not even two world exclusive readings ... but three, yes, THREE world exclusive readings!!! I'll be starting with a short, bloody scene from Wolf Island, following it up with a reading from book 9 of The Demonata, and then, after a hopefully lively and engaging Q&A session, I plan to finish up with a reading from my new four-book sereis (it won't be the same extract that I did last year). How's that for a one-two-three whammy?!?

The only downside to doing all-new material is that, since I haven't read it out in a live environment before, I'll probably make some mistakes, and it won't be as engaging as something I've done lots of times before. After 8 years on the road, I know what works best for an audience, and the "classic" Darren Shan show would run as follows -- open with my Cirque Du Freak scene where the wolf man bites off a woman's hand and Mr Tall sews it back .. swiftly onto the scene from Lord Loss where Grubbs first encounters LL and his familiars, in his parents' bedroom; Q&A; then finish up with the reading from the first book of my four-books series that I've been performing at most of my public events over the last year or so. I know, if I do those three extracts, that everyone's going to go home happy. I'm confident on all three pieces, I can act a bit and interact with the audience since I don't have to look at the words on the page very often, and all three extracts work perfectly in that order -- a humourous start, a dark middle, a necessary pause for Q&A, then the surprise punch at the end.

But Edinburgh's different. This is my ninth festival in a row, and although I get lots of new fans coming each year, quite a few come back to see me year after year. I'm always conscious of those repeat fans, and eager to give them something new, something different, so that they won't go away humming and hawing, saying "Different year -- same old routine." So I tend to make Edinburgh a place of experimentation and previews. I've tried out all sorts of new material up there over the years. Some of it hasn't worked, and I've never done it again. Some gets used for a year or two, then slips from my repertoire. And some bits become standard parts of my show, which I use at various times when on the road. The thing is, I never know in advance which is going to be which!!! I normally have a good idea, but there have been times when I've gone up with a scene I'm sure is going to blow people away, only for it to fall flat; and other times when I've been unsure about a scene, only for it to go down brilliantly with the crowd. I think this year's trio will work pretty well, though The Demonata extracts will only have full impact on fans who are up to date with the series, while the last reading will go over the heads of anyone who hasn't read my vampire series. Still, no matter what, they're still world exclusives, and those who come will be able to go away smug in the knowledge that they're a few steps ahead of everyone else in the world when it comes to knowing a bit of what comes next in the world of Darren Shan!!!! I doubt if this will be the most entertaining show I've ever done, but it's probably going to be one of my most revealing...

p.s. I'm going to need a couple of vounteers to help me out on stage with two of the readings. If you're a strong, confident reader, and aren't phased at the thought of getting up in front of 400-500 strangers, be at the entrance to the yurt (that's the author's tent in the corner of the square -- you turn right once you come through the entrance) twenty minutes before my event is due to start (i.e. 4.10pm). If I choose you, you'll get to hang out with me in the tent a bit before the event starts!!!

I've spent a good chunk of the last couple of days working on my DVD collection, organising DVDs alphabetically and/or by director, moving out the videos they're going to replace, making space for them on my shelves. It's a time-consuming process, but a necessary evil -- I have over 4000 films in my collection, so they have to be carefully organised or I won't be able to find anything!!!! Had a break from that this afternoon though, when I went to see Wall-E with Bas, my cousins Meara and Olivia, and my youngest next-door neighbour, Liam. I loved it!!! Very skillfully made, thoroughly engaging, funny but moving too. Definitely worth all of the praise it's been getting. I especially liked how it harkened back to the days of silent cinema -- its very dificult to tell a good story using only a minimum of words, but this one managed it beautifully.

I received the following email a couple of days ago:

I read your last few blogs and have noticed this 'Greater Good'. When you spoke about Robert Cormier, I realised how much alike your messages can be to his. His book 'Heroes' is a must-read in my eyes, small but very powerful, questioning the title of 'heroes'. We studied it as part of our English Language GCSE.

There was one question about your books that keeps coming to my mind, however; the way in which you create and develop your characters is quite unique, for example the 'Saga' vampires being different from people's stereotypical views. Is the way you do this by taking traditional items and then making small changes, or do these ideas come as a whole? In my writing, I find that whenever I get an idea, I instinctively find ways to change it to make it different and more interesting. I'm not sure whether that's just me.

As I've said many times on this blog, each writer is different. Each develops his or her own way of working -- it's a process of experimentation, finding what works best for YOU. There's no one over-riding "right" way to write -- every writer must develop in their own unique way, in order to write stories that are unique. But for me, the process generally works a bit like this. I'll get an idea and decide I'm going to do a certain type of story, e.g. with Cirque Du Freak I realised early on that I wanted to mix vampires in with a circus. I'll usually have a rough idea of what I want my story to achieve, but I don't often know more than that. As I go along, the story reveals more to me, and I play around with ideas and characters and plot lines.

For instance, originally Mr Crepsley was going to be travelling with a regular circus, which had only a tent of "freaks", like the side-shows of olden days. But as I started to write the story, I realised he needed a more fantastical backdrop, that his character would seem more natural if I placed him in a self-contained world of similarly mystical performers. That led me to ditch the regular circus and develop the freak show aspect. It ended up becoming an integral part of the story, but that wasn't planned in the beginning.

I knew from almost the start that I didn't want to do a traditional type of vampire. I wanted to play around with ideas of vampirism, and explore what it would actually be like if you lived that long, had to drink blood, but weren't evil. I had a vague idea that I wanted my vampire to be a bit like the samurai I'd seen in films by Akira Kurosawa (one of my favourite directors of all time), but I didn't have much of an idea of what the vampires in the series were going to be like when i was writing the first draft of the first book -- I wasn't even sure if I'd bring other vamps into it, or if we'd only ever see Mr Crepsley. It was only when I came to write the second book that I started to really tackle the issue, and began to develop my view of how exactly my vampires would live and behave. Because of the way I write (juggling several books around at the same time), I was then able to go back and re-write the first book, to make sure it tied in with book 2 and the others. Indeed, if I remember correctly, I was still developing my ideas of how my vampires would be all the way up to the Vampire Mountain trilogy!!

In short, no, I don't think you DO need to have everything clear in your head when you begin a story. Part of the fun of writing for me is finding out things as I write, of letting my stories lead me off in directions I hadn't thought about before, to explore new ideas. I like to be flexible when I'm doing a first draft. The most important thing about a book (in my opinion) isn't the attention to detail, but the rhythm and pull of the story. If you're writing a fantasy book, nobody's going to care if you develop a long genealogy for every character, and describe all the fantastical creatures in exquisite detail, unless you can find a good, involving story for them. The pace of the story should be your first priority. The details will come later, maybe in the second or third draft. You should be prepared to experiment first time round, to take the story in different directions, to try different things. Some will work, some won't. The stuff that does work, you can explore even more fully in subsequent drafts. The stuff that doesn't work, you can dump -- but it's better to make a mistake and dump it, than not make a mistake at all. Sometimes you can learn more by doing something wrong than you can just by taking the safe route and doing the "right" thing all the time.

Explore. Experiment. Have fun.

In my view they're three of the prime rules if you want to lead an interesting, satisfying life, and I think they're just as important if you want to write something interesting and satisfying.

Finished my latest edit of the fourth book of my 4 book series. It's a grim, gloomy rollercoaster of a story, with lots of emotional highs and lows. It's also one of the very few times I've found myself welling up at one of my own stories. I usually never come anywhere close to crying when I'm writing, as I almost always know far in advance about the big sad moments, and I have to focus on the technicalities of actually writing them and making them work -- you have to learn to detach yourself from your work when you're a writer, in order to see it objectively, so that you can ensure that other people are as affected by your story as you are (this is probably a very dangerous line to draw, but I'm going to go ahead and put it out there anyway -- bad writers are writers who only see the worth in their stories themselves; good writers are writers who can let other people see the worth in their stories). But there's a scene near the end of this fourth book that tugs at my heartstrings every time I come to it, a scene that I find heartbreaking because of its inevitability. It's one of those scenes where you want to stop the story, take it back and do it all differently, so that the characters needn't suffer. I hope readers of the book feel the same way towards the scene as I do. I'm in trouble if they don't!!!!!

Saw Letters From Iwo Jima last night. Very powerful. I felt it was even stronger than Flags of our Fathers. Today I took things easy. I went through a big pile of DVDs which have been building up on the floor beside my computer for quite a few months, and finally added them to the database on my PC -- now I just have to try and find space on my heaving shelves for them!!! Then Bas and I went to see Mamma Mia at the cinema. It was so-so. I've seen the stage musical, which I really liked, but I felt it worked better on stage than on film. Still, it was the perfect way to pass a mindless Sunday afternoon!! We popped in to see my friend Kenny on our way back, then went for a walk in Curraghchase, our local park. Then we watched the movie of The Chocolate War back home. The book, by Robert Cormier, is one of my favourites, and I think the film is equally powerful. In fact, I'd place it in my "alternate" Top 10 of movies. By that I mean, I have a list of the films which I think are the best films I've ever seen (you can see them on my MySpace profile). But then there are also films that I watch over and over, films that have as much of an impact on me now as they did 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Cinema Paradiso... Blue Velvet... The Good, The Bad & The Ugly... These are films I can watch regularly and still enjoy, and The Chocolate War ranks among them. It's a vastly underrated classic in my opinion, one of the key teen movies ever made.

If you haven't read The Chocolate War or seen the film, you should!! Especially if you're a teenager. Some stories work best when you're a teen. You can still  appreciate them when you're older, but you really need to catch them in your teens to reallt GET them. Ferris Bueller's Day Off is one example. The Breakfast Club is another. They're quality movies, made for teens, and best taken to heart by those they're aimed at. The Chocolate War is one of the darkest chronicles of teen life ever committed either to paper or film. It's about loneliness, bullying, the abuse of power, sad people who feel lost, the impossibility of wearing down the system, the need to fight even when you know you can't win. It raises lots of questions and makes you look at the world in a different light. It's not a comfortable story, but it's essential reading and viewing. I think it's outrageous that the book is the most-banned novel in schools and libraries in the USA. I can understand the desire of certain teachers and librarians to ban certain books -- I'm not saying I AGREE with them (hoo boy!! do I NOT agree with them!!!!), but I can see their point of view when they try to keep sexually-charged books out of young readers' hands, or books over-running with expletives. But anyone who bans The Chocolate War is doing it for a far more serious and disturbing reason. They don't like it because it depicts a cruel world where teachers can be as petty and vindictive as their pupils, when evil triumphs and good guys get trampled into the dirt. They want to deny that the world is like that. They don't want students thinking the sort of thoughts that this book makes them think. In short, they want to control the children they have power over, the same way that the central adult figure in The Chocolate War tries control the boys under his reign. By banning Cormier's book, they reveal just how true it is, and just how vital it is that it exists and is read and made available.

Unusually, the film is just as powerful as the book. The director, Keith Gordon, did a brilliant job of remaining true to Robert Cormier's vision, while at the same time giving the story a new lease of life as a film, or making it work in cinematic terms. (He later directed the equally criminally overlooked A Midnight Clear and Mother Night.) The biggest deviation from the novel is the finale, which he completely re-imagines. At first glance it looks like he's taken a safe route and softened the ending. And to an extent that might be true. But at the same time it's a dark, bleak ending, with an ironic twist that makes it an intriguing counterpoint to the book -- in the novel, good is completely crushed by evil, and we can recognise that, but in the movie we actually end up feeling empathy with the key teen villain. The ultimate message of the book is that this is a cruel world and the bad guys will always win -- the message of the film, in a way, seems to be that this is a cruel world and the bad guys will always win, so the best we can hope for is that the bad guys conquer with a bit of smile-inducing style!!!!

Anyway, I think I've gone on about The Chocolate War enough for one night!! All I can say is, track down a copy of the book as swiftly as possible, and make sure you check out the film afterwards too -- you'll thank me for the tip when you do!!!!!

Edited more of the fourth book of my 4 book series. I should finish work on it on Friday or over the weekend. I'm taking a bit more time on these books than I normally would -- I'd hoped to fit in a first draft of a new book over the summer, before I went to Edinburgh, but time has run away from me and I've had to push that back by a few months, meaning I've got an extra week or so to play with. That means there's no rush with these, so I'm moseying along at a nice, but not a frantic pace, enjoying the journey into darkness.

Saw Flags of Our Fathers today, which tied in quite neatly with the blog I posted yesterday, about fighting for a "greater good". The movie was at heart an expose of heroism. It was true story about soldiers who put up a flag on an island during World War II, got snapped by a photographer, and ended up being treated as heroes by a public desperate to have heroes to believe in. There was a line near the end of the film to the effect that the soldiers had fought for their friends, the men who were dying all around them, not for the millions of people back home; they couldn't afford to have any loftier notions, not when their friends were relying on them, not when bullets and bombs were exploding all around them; the world became a small, violent place, in which they fought for one another, to survive and pull through.

It's a theme I explore myself in The Demonata, particularly books 9 and 10. As the stakes mount, and my small band of "heroes" are made aware of the enormity of their task, one of them says that he doesn't care about the universe, that he can't think that big -- he's just fighting for those he knows and loves. My books are all about demons and vampires on the surface, but like any fantasist worth his or her salt, I try to explore the real world within the realms of my fantasy novels. My books are reflections of the times I live in, the thoughts I have about life in the early 21st century, explorations of the way I feel about politics and warfare and everything else. My vampire books were in a large part influenced by events in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. My demon books (and particularly the one-off fantasy book that I hope to release when The Demonata finishes) are to a cetain extent my way of looking at the "war on terror" (but is Lord Loss meant to stand in for Saddam Hussein or George Bush?!? That's one I'm not even sure of myself!!!!). I'm not saying the books are thinly veiled political studies -- for me, the story of each novel must come first, and I'm more interested in the pace and impact of my tales than I am in my real-world explorations; I want the books to entertain, not educate. But the politics ARE there, for those who care to look for them. I don't often have answers, but I try to draw attention to some of the questions which I think we should be addressing (such as what makes a hero, and does the world need them). And I think, if any of you are hoping to eke out careers of your own in the world of fantasy, horror or whatever, it's something you should be considering too. Good fantasy doesn't simply let us escape from the world we live it -- it should help us try to make sense of it too.

Finished editing the third book of my 4 book series, and started editing the fourth. This one touches on the subject of fascism, the Nazis in particular, something that has fascinated me for a long time. I'm always interested in power and how it's won and wielded. It's easy to just react to the Nazis with horror, to shake your head and mildly wonder at how such monsters ever rose to prominence. But if you put the monstrosities aside and look at them neutrally, you can trace their rise, the way they pulled a war-ravaged nation back together, gave people jobs and hope and a purpose. You can see why the German public backed them in the early days, and how they betrayed the faith of those people, how they seized power and used it to take the country down a dark, twisted route. But I think it's important to acknowledge the positives along with the negatives, to understand the Nazis, to realise where they came from and how and why they came to power -- and to arm ourselves with that knowledge and apply it to the present. It would be easy to believe the horrors of the Nazis are long behind us, and that the world will never face such nightmares again. Except that's a bigger fairy tale than any I've ever written. The atrocities have continued, on a smaller scale, all across the globe in the decades since. Genocide hasn't gone out of fashion. Leaders still lie to their voters. Powerful politicians still manipulate the public and wreak havoc out of the spotlight. Major companies cash in on warfare and death. We live in a scary, two-faced world, where power-hungry men and women happily sacrifice other people's lives in the pursuit of their goals.

I think one of the attractive things about the vampires in my Saga of Darren Shan series was that most of them abhorred the political games that so many humans love to play. My vampires tried to escape the pettiness of governments and armies and beauraucracies. I think a lot of us would like to get away from the messy machinations of the real world, and the clan appealed to our ecapist halves. But at the same time I didn't want to make my vampires some kind of utopian hippy commune, and that's what I think makes them so fascinating. In many ways my vampires are fascists, living by a strict code of conduct, no time for the elderly or weak, blindly following their leaders, cracking down hard on any in the clan who break the laws. I wanted to show that we always have to be vigilant, that no matter what sort of system we adopt, there will always be people looking to abuse it. There's no such thing as perfection in this great, big, scary world of ours, and it's important that we constantly examine our culture, our beliefs, our system of government. I think, as humans, we shouldn't be looking to create a perfect society, because I doubt that's feasible -- we should settle for trying to see the cracks in what's there, strive to fix them up as best we can, then look out for more cracks, because fresh ones are always going to appear. Villains and manipulators and people in power who simply make good-intentioned mistakes are always going to be with us. In a way I think they're essential -- if we have nothing to rise above, we have no opportunity to choose right over wrong, good over evil.

This blog was sparked by a number of things. One was the book, as I mentioned above, which goes back to re-explore some of the fascist themese I touched on in The Saga. Another was the movie, Downfall, which I saw today, a gripping German film about the last few days of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich -- a highly recommended, albeit frightening look into the minds of a man and a nation who had come seriously unstuck. I was also put into this thoughtful mode by the following email from a lady called Sherrie, who lives in Dubai:

Dear Mr. Shan, i just wanted to say that your books are full of surprises and unexpected events (which is the aspect that I value most about your books), they are also very rich in as far as moral and spiritual fields are concerned. There's one thing you keep mentioning in your books about the "greater good": that some people should die in order for humanity to survive. I'm not sure that I agree with that. For instance, all those brave soldiers who fought and died for their people during world war 2 (in my point of view) were much more worthy of living than the cowards who failed to attend the battle-field. I just wanted to know if you agree with me (to some degree at least) or not. I have no expectations of your reply (I understand you have more important things to attend to) but if you judge that my inquiry deserves a response, kindly mention why or why not. Thank you so much for your time.

I got this a few days ago, and have been thinking about it ever since. It's a hard one to call. Firstly, I don't think there were too many "cowards" in the second world war. As far as I'm aware, the majority of those fit to fight, did so. There were people who fled the war zones, of course, and others who profited from it, but for the most part I think it was a war of heroes, of people who fought for a valid reason, against a truly monstrous regime. But the question about a "greater good" is intriguing. It's something I return to a lot in my novels, though I usually have my "heroes" risking their lives for a small group of family or friends, rather than for humanity on the whole (Beranabus was an exception). In principle, I think that yes, we need a "greater good" in life, something we hold dearer than our own well-being, something we would risk all to protect. It can be a parent, a child, a friend ... even a pet!! And I don't think the recipient's qualities matter, i.e. I don't think it matters if the one you're prepared to risk all for is a coward, or a thief, or a liar. What matter most is the love you feel for them, the responsibility you feel towards them. That willingness to lay down one's life for a loved one is, I believe, at the very heart of what makes us human. You could be cynical and saw it's just our nature, that we're obeying our instincts, the same way an animal will fight to protect its young. But I think it goes beyond that. As sentient beings, we have the ability to choose, to love and respect as we please. We make a choice when we put the welfare of others before our own, and if we have souls of one kind of another, I think we have them because of that choice, and if they are affected by anything within our control, then they're afected by the choices we make.

On the other hand, I think the "greater good" can be manipulated and used by people in pursuit of power. Love of a political party can be dangerous. Love of a country can be dangerous. Love of a god can be dangerous. They shouldn't be, but they are. People argue and fight because of personal loves, but wars are fought because of politics, nationalities and religion. In those situations, the "greater good" can become a source of hatred, envy, destruction. I think there has to be a VERY good reason to lay your life down because of love of a country or god, and those reasons don't come along too often. I think we should all be wary of people who sanction wars, who claim a love of god and country as their justifications. I don't think anyone should have a greater love than the love he or she bears for the people closest to them, and I'm damn suspicious of anyone who says they're acting in a certain way for the larger "greater good".

Hmmm... Not sure if all that makes sense!! That's the trouble with big issues like this -- they often defy simple explanations. But that's a good thing -- life shouldn't be so simple that we can sum up all our beliefs in a few cute, bite-sized quotations. It's good that we struggle to make sense of the world and our understanding of it, that we seek to learn, rather than act as if we know all the answers. But I'm done struggling and seeking for one night -- this has turned out into a mammoth blog, which I rather suspected it would when I read through Sherrie's email and started formulating a response! I'm off to bed -- night all!!! And don't forget -- keep a close eye on anyone who seems more concerned about YOUR "greater good" than they do about the "greater good" of their own circle of loved ones and friends...