All in a name

 Most fiction authors will confirm that choosing the right name for a character is vital. It's beyond any logical explanation, but if you don't have the names right for your protagonists then the whole book can feel wrong. I have a book idea that is sort of brewing, but the name I wanted for my heroine has been used by a friend in a similar style book. The books won't in the end be anything like each other, but that name is out of bounds and until I can find another my book is, sadly, going nowhere. Writers are weird - but you already know that. 

As a reader, a name that feels old fashioned can seriously damage my enjoyment of a book. But fashions change - a couple of decades ago a character named Wilf (Wilfred) or Ava for a child or a teenager would have suggested to me that the author was elderly and not up to speed with current trends. Now it is all turned around and the old names are fashionable again. Even so, it's not all old names. I don't think Gladys has had a revival yet. 

Finding the name is therefore a small but vital piece of research. Googling popular names for a specific year can be a starting point. Writers of historicals of my acquaintance find a walk around a cemetery can be very useful. Baby name books, newspapers stories, eavesdropping on the bus - they are all sources of inspiration. Now you can use name generators!

So, that's the choice. But what about what the name says.  The idea for this post came when I read yet another book where the villainess was called Yvonne. Alright, I don't spell it that way, but I would like to know why the traditional spelling of my name always has to be the nasty girlfriend, vindictive ex or village battle axe. Huh - maybe you shouldn't answer that. 

Short names are popular. John or Jack is a stalwart for a hero. Shakespeare can give you the unusual - Hero, Orlando, Bianca. The Bible is always reliable for hero names. Millionaires are often foreign and exotic  - Niccolo, Bruno, Raphael. Advice suggests names should not be difficult to pronounce - although I'm not sure where that leaves some of the inventions I've read in fantasy novels. Using names that are too similar is a no-no, and I have been picked up for using names with the same initial letter! I've googled and there is a vast amount of advice out there on choosing names if you need it  But I'm still wondering why Yvonne gets such a bad press.

Travel by the book

 At this time of the year newspapers and magazines are making a feature of books to take on holiday with you. Reading on the beach or by the pool - or on deck - is a well established thing. But a book doesn't have to be something that accompanies you on your journey - it can be the journey. Escape  by book is possible even if actual travelling isn't, for reasons of money or circumstance. And it does not have to be just places - time travel is also totally achievable. All you need is the book.

In the last few weeks I have been to the Lake District (Sarah Morgan's A Secret Escape), a small town in Maine (Melinda Leigh's Midnight Exposure), Norfolk (Kate Hardy's The Body at the Vineyard), Provence (Veronica Henry's One Night at the Chateau)  and Siena (T A Williams' Murder in Siena). I've travelled back in time to attend the Congress of Vienna (Joanna Maitland's His Reluctant Mistress), and to Yorkshire  in the 1990s (Stuart Pawson's Chill Factor.) I've been to a couple of places that don't actually exist  - a invented Welsh Village (Liz Davies's The Ticklemore Treasure Trove) and a world where even the heroine has no idea where she is (Kate Johnson's The Promised Queen).  I enjoyed them all.  

Looking at the list, you can see I have catholic tastes. Romance, romantic suspense, police procedural crime, cosy crime/amateur sleuth, historical romance and romantacy. Several of the books  were written by friends, some of them I stumbled on by happy accident. The majority were part of a series, or linked titles, which reinforces the view of publishers that readers like series. Some I paid for, some were part of my Kindle Unlimited subscription - paid for, but not by direct hard cash!  That has been a good investment. I'm a fast reader and I read a lot. I've sampled things I would not have tried if I'd had to buy them, or carry them home from the library, with some enjoyable results. Also some complete turkeys, but that's life. 

I was wondering if there was a common theme - I enjoy reading crime. I like puzzles and mystery and a bit of excitement, but I certainly like to have at least an element of romance - and a positive ending. Fully fledged crime readers do not like romance messing up their crime. I have been told that often. I was amused to read a review of Stuart Pawson complaining about this, when to me hero Charlie's romantic failures were only an element of the story. And they were failures. Poor Charlie! They would not like mine! Romantic suspense is my favourite genre, which is why I write it, but it is not the only thing I read. Location is important. I like scenery and I love food. TA Williams is especially good for that. Lots of delectable Italian grub. Many of the books have animals in them, also enjoyable. I think there might be a post in the future on elements that make a romantic/cosy crime.  I was thinking too that the books divide between real life situations - contemporary or historical - which involve research and those with imagined settings which require world building. They all take the reader on a journey. Which is what reading is all about.

Crime moves on

 Warning - this post has spoilers for anyone who enjoys the British Library Crime Classics.

Specifically a book titled Scandalize My Name, written by an author called Fiona Sinclair and originally published in 1960. I was attracted to the book by the rather intriguing title and the cover, which suggested the London setting with a statue of Eros, although it appears to be in a park, not in Piccadilly Circus. 

I enjoyed it. Reviewers, and Martin Edwards' Introduction, commented on the large cast, introduced rather confusingly in the first pages, when they are all getting ready to attend a  21st birthday party. Being warned, I read the beginning twice and was much clearer on who was who. Martin suggested this was a characteristic of a debut book, which this was, and that suggestion strikes a chord.  Telling the story can often overwhelm technique when you are starting out. My problem was always trying to cram in material that would have been better as two books. 

The plot of Scandalize My Name centres on the murder of a rather nasty blackmailer and the stories of his victims form potential motives. It was convincing given its time, but it struck me that a number of the motives would not exist, of themselves, if the book was being written now. Bigamy and the illegitimacy of the children of the marriage, unfortunate letters that reveal a homosexual affair, the  disgrace of an up and coming young lawyer if it was known his father had been in prison. The revelation of all of these could still be a cause for scandal now, in the right circumstances, and bigamy is still a crime, but with the easing of divorce laws ending a marriage before starting another is not the immense hurdle, maybe impossibility, that it once was. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal offense. Society in general is less censorious. Crime moves on to match.. 

Reputation is still a consideration and preserving it would still provide ammunition for a blackmailer, but attitudes now are very different from those of 65 years ago and the story would be told in a very different way. If any of those characters in the book were real I guess they might be as surprised by  the changes in attitude over things such as illegitimacy as they would by mobile phones and electric cars.  The glimpse of a very different world with different values and lifestyle is what I find interesting in the British Library classics. Their popularity suggest I am not alone in this. And they are also very good stories.  

Conjunctive adverbs

 More pedantry this week. 

Bet you didn't know what a conjunctive adverb was? And yes - I had to look it up. 

They are adverbs that joint two sentences together - those high falutin words that manage to sound posh and formal when they are used  - however, furthermore, nevertheless ...

'She had moved house to a different city, therefore she could not go to her old friend's birthday party.'

I was told  - by whom and when, I don't remember, but it was a long time ago - that they shouldn't be used in writing fiction. I can understand, as they do sound a bit like something out of a business letter or a legal document. The advice came to mind a few weeks ago when a group of writer friends were discussing blurb writing and I jumped on the use of 'however' as being wrong. It was a reflex action (sorry, Luisa) but having thought about it more deeply, rather than just accepting that it was laid down somewhere in The Rules, I can see the logic. One of those Rules for Writers is that you should avoid using adverbs and adjectives. That's one I happily ignore as I like description and I think it is part of my style. I suppose the answer is moderation. Don't go overboard. But conjunctive adverbs? Can they be ditched? Probably. Two short sentences would do the work of one long one. 

Simplicity works, in vocabulary and expression. I don't believe in dumbing down - and I'm not averse to having to look up an unfamiliar word - it's how you learn. Reading on an e- reader is very good for this as you can look things up without having to go and find the dictionary. I miss the facility when I'm reading a paper book. You've probably heard the suggestion that if someone mispronounces a complex or difficult word it's possibly because they learned it by reading - which is rather wonderful, when you think about it.  

This post began because I jokily used the word 'forthwith' in an e-mail and with its formality was associating it with nevertheless and all its posh cousins. But then I looked it up and of course it is just an ordinary adverb. But still posh.

The posh words have their place, but maybe it is like that old piece of advice I was given so long ago - best not use them in fiction?   

Pedantry

 I admit to being a bit picky about the use, and misuse, of words. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I did benefit from an education in a time when grammar was still taught in schools, and my mother had a posh boyfriend when she was a teenager and he used to tell her what was correct English. Whether this was patronising mansplaining or not, I don't know - he was long gone before I arrived on the scene - but she passed nuggets of information down to me.

So there it is - a bit picky. Things that don't actually have me hurling books at the wall or yelling at the radio, but still provoke a deep, long suffering sigh. 

Things that provoke the sighing? Comprising of. You don't need the of - it is just comprising. It is alarming how often you find this mistake in books and articles. OK - the writer may not know, but the editor, whose job it is to manage the words, should surely pick it up? Another  of that gets me sighing is bored of. It's bored with, people. I suspect I'm on a loosing battle there as the former seems to be becoming accepted use. 

I still recite  - different from, similar to - on occasion. I think that was one of the ones that came from the boyfriend.

Popular sayings also get on my nerves. Often connected to people in politics - I wonder why that might be. Pet hates at the moment? At pace. What's wrong with fast, quickly, rapidly, as soon as possible? Another one - watching on - to me it doesn't even make sense! The on is redundant. 

A lot of the problems come from those pesky little prepositions. The things you're not supposed to end a sentence with. Tiny, but full of pitfalls. 

That's my moan for this week. As I said, I am not perfect. I have trouble with lose and loose and lie and lay but I do know that I have to look them up, which helps. 

The world is not going to end because of a preposition, but I will still be the one sighing heavily in the corner when one gets misplaced. 

So - what else did you do in London?

 The prime purpose of my visit to London was the flower show - subject of last week's blog, and to see old friends. But it wasn't just that - I was there for a week. I had a fabulous, if expensive, time. London, particularly eating out, has got very pricey. My credit card chickens are now coming home to roost! It was worth it though. 

So - what did I do? Well, there was a coffee morning at the Society of Authors - a chance to see the office, meet officials of what is effectively my trade union,  chat and laugh with other authors from all sorts of genres and eat some delicious pastries.  It was a interesting morning. I followed it up with a trip on the bus to Battersea Power station - my 'mastery' of the London bus system is one of my recent achievements. When I lived there I was strictly a tube girl. The old power station is a cavernous space, with a mix of chain shops and specialised stores, lots of eating places and a very nice bookshop. I enjoyed some retail therapy and dinner. Thursday I did the environs of Oxford Street, seeing a friend, with a lecture in the evening on Tarot cards, with wine, at Occult bookshop Treadwells. The speaker - Melissa Mercury - was informed and entertaining on the use of the cards in books and films. Another enjoyable evening. 

Friday I found my way down to Dulwich, to the picture gallery  and an exhibit of the paintings of Tirzah Garwood. She was the wife, then young widow, of the war artist Eric Ravilious. Like many artistic wives she was an artist in her own right and the exhibition was impressive. I have art tutor Stephen Parker to thank for that day out, as he introduced me to her work as part of his Cardiff university class on art and gardens.  Saturday was lunch with friends and a concert at St Martin's in the Fields. it was Mozart's Requiem - which for some reason always sparks creative ideas. I bet I was the only member of the audience sending a Bentley over a cliff. Writers are funny like that - well this one is. I do hope I get round to writing the book that goes with it. 

Sunday I ambled around Covent Garden with a free afternoon concert at St Martin's, celebrating world football day. I had no idea that was a thing, but we heard some fine singing of various soccer anthems.

And then it was time to come home. As I have said, I really enjoyed it.  Will I do it again? I really don't know. But I have some good memories and maybe the opening of a new book. We will all have to wait and see.

This year's Chelsea

 Regular readers will know my weakness for gardens. So a trip to the Chelsea Flower Show is high on my list of desirable things to do. I treated myself to an expensive all day ticket for the first Members' day - the one after the royals and the celebs go - and this year I was there before nine a.m. I didn't make it so early last year as the RNA Awards ceremony was the night before! This year there was no book and no short listing, so I was able to give the flowers my full attention. Even at that time in the morning the place was crowded and the show gardens were five or six deep in spectators. I had a hit list though, so was able to find my way to the things I wanted to see and view them reasonably well. I had a good time. It was a glorious day and I managed to get around with numerous stops to sit for a few minutes and rest my hip problem. And of course, I took pictures. My favourite garden was from Jewellers Boodles, inspired by their Raindance diamond collection. I liked the diamonds too, but they are way out of my price range! I liked the garden because it was so pretty, with pastel planting that I hope to eventually use for inspiration in mine. The design won a gold medal, but I didn't see it featured in any of the TV broadcasts, but perhaps I missed it. The TV I saw seemed to be more interested in displays featuring rust and weeds - but everyone to their own taste. I go for the plants. I can grow my own weeds, thanks. 

Detail of the planting from the garden -
I took it to remind me what I want to emulate. 

Roses were high on my list of things I wanted to see.
I picked the brains of the stall holders in the Pavilion over what would do well in pots. 

Clematis. Triumph of hope over experience as I have never managed to keep one alive.
I am going to have another go. Wish me luck. 

Lilies. I bought bulbs - I think they are the same ones as last year. I will find out, as last years have come up. For once the slugs didn't get them. 

Climbers. I bought myself a plumbago - the blue one in the middle, as I had never seen one before. It made it home with me and has new flowers, so I have my fingers crossed. 

Peonies. At some stage I have to have one of these beauties, although I have heard they are not easy to grow.

Peonies. At some stage I have to have one of these beauties,
although I have heard they are not easy to grow.