The end of Unbound Publishers

 A sad moment in my writing life happened when I turned 35 and could no longer be eligible for the Betty Trask Award, one I’d often daydreamed of winning. Another one happened recently when I found that the crowd publishers, Unbound, have gone bankrupt and gone under.

I got on the Unbound train quite early, being on of the funders of one of the earlier books, The Gin Lane Gazette by cartoonist, Adrian Teal. It was right up my alley, a compendium of an imaginary Grub Street magazine, reporting news from the 1750s-1800. My copy was lucky number thirteen and I had my name in the back of the book in the subscriber list.

I was very excited about Unbound, and subscriber publishing in general because it seemed like a really eighteenth century way to fund a book. I knew, however, it wouldn’t be a platform I’d be able to fund my book on. Many of the authors, especially the earlier ones, were people who already had some degree of celebrity. There were quirky books by people like Stephen Fry, novels by Kryten actor, Robert Llewellyn, and book by people with large Twitter followings like Ade Teal (which is how I first heard of the project and publisher). I was no great shakes as a Twitterer, I’ve had a couple of minor successes on Youtube and this blog, though pushing two million hits now, has never set the internet ablaze. I’d have to wait before Unbound became my publisher of choice.

I was accepted by another subscription publishing scheme, Britain’s Next Bestseller. They are defunct now and, as far as I am aware, only published a handful of books - none of them bestsellers. During this time, I tried to ramp up my social media output, put some effort into Twitter, set up a new Youtube channel with daily videos, I even handed out cards outside the big Waterstones in London. I wasn’t successful, coming a fair bit under the minimum number of subscribers needed to go into publishing.

This turned out to be a good thing. The book would have died a death had it come out under that imprint, and the process of crowdfunding gave me impetus to have the book edited, which lead to a whole new set of drafts and a hugely improved novel. I ended up publishing that book,. Death of a Dream Pedlar, through the Amazon self-publishing arm, where it’s died a death, but one wholly on my terms. I’ve sold less than a hundred copies, but I achieved my aim, which was to put that book to bed so I can work more wholeheartedly on other projects without that in the back of my mind. (Though my recent house purchase and renovation has rather eaten up my writing time and energy recently.)

I feel this new book will be acceptable in traditional publishing and, if it finds its audience, will do fairly well - but I always think that.

There was one other Unbound book I helped fund. This was a project by Shandy Hall, the museum of Laurence Sterne and experimental writing. This was Cain’s Jawbone, a detective book that is also a puzzle. There are a hundred un-numbered pages and the puzzle is to put them all together in the right order to make a coherent murder mystery. It’s fiendishly difficult and although I’ve read all hundred pages, I only have some vague notion of what the ordering (or even the story) might be. 

The copy of Cain’s Jawbone I recieved came in a box, with all the pages printed on separate cards to be reshuffled and re-ordered at will. The book that went out to the bookshops was a bound one and caused a small storm on Tik-Tok when someone bought it, ripped all the pages out and tried to solve it. As a result of the popularity of Tik-Tokkers taking, tearing and re-ordering the book, my review of it on Goodreads is probably one of my only real social media hits. 

But now Unbound has gone the way of Britains Next Bestseller and, from the grumbles and rumours I’ve heard, have pocketed subscriber money without remunerating the authors - I may have misunderstood this grumbles though. I also found out that, while in business, Unbound would make heavy editorial choices with the work and be quite strict about using their own in-house designers. As I say, at least Death of a Dream Pedlar flopped on my terms, with my design, my cover and my editing. Who knows, maybe the next book won’t flop.

No place for Kermit - Likeabilty and Eighteenth Century Literature

 Recently, I wrote a little piece about puppet theatres in the eighteenth century. As a little game, I decided to try and cast eighteenth century works with The Muppets but I quickly came upon a particular problem, there were very few roles for Kermit.

Kermit the Frog is not a complete paragon of virtue. He is easily exasperated (though is given extreme provocation), he can sometimes give in to more boisterous elements and I think he is pretty cruel in his indecision over his relationship with Miss Piggy. He is, however, a decent chap/frog, he is essentially likeable and he needs to be cast as such. In the Muppet adaptations we have, he is Bob Cratchet in The Christmas Carol, Captain Smollett in Treasure Island and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz. While Smollett is actually quite a strict, steely character, Kermit plays him with his usual good-natured charm. That simply doesn’t fit in well with the eighteenth century.

I thought about The Beggar’s Opera. It would seem natural to cast him as Macheath, he’s the main character and it’d be fun dressing him in a little highway outfit and having Miss Piggy and Mary Sue Pig (or Spamela Anderson) fight over him. It’s not a terrible fit, there’s a haplessness about Macheath that Kermit could play, but there’s a harshness too, and although having the two pigs fight over him would be funny, and play to their characters (and it would be hilarious with dozens of pigs coming at the end, claiming to be his wife) Kermit’s romantic nature is indecisive, not playboy. 

Stick him in the world of Defoe - he could make a passable Crusoe, would be sidelined in Roxana or Moll Flanders and I can’t imagine him picking pockets as Colonel Jack. He’d be a decent enough Gulliver I suppose, an okay Tom Jones (though again, he’d lack the vim of that character). He’d make the worst Lovelace possible… though he might be okay as Evelina’s Count Orville and I’d pay good money to see him as Count D’Elmont in Love in Excess.

The reason for this seems to be that Kermit is a decent, likeable kind of frog, and eighteenth century literature is not all that interested in providing its readers with that kind of character. The worlds of Smollett, Swift, Fielding, Haywood, Burney, are not ones full of likeable people. They are worlds where people face tough moral decisions, or are slaves to their unreasons and whims - they aren’t worlds for decent types for the most part. Even decent characters in eighteenth century fiction, like Tom Jones or Parson Adams, have issues with sex, violence or hypocrisy that make them simply more than the bland and likeable. 

This seems to be a problem for modern readers, who seem to expect to like the characters they read about. Reader reviews of modern books often complain about the lack of likeable character.  They say they can’t follow Crusoe’s adventures because of his colonising the island and othering of Friday (even as he learns to appreciate his companion), or that The Beggar’s Opera has no likeable characters because everyone is in it for themselves. To be honest, I think this is a flaw in the modern reader rather than older books, writers of the past wanted to present vivid characters, interesting characters, they didn’t seem to be so interested in likeable ones.

On writer did set out to create an intentionally likeable character, my old frenemy, Samuel Richardson. He wrote Sir Charles Grandison to be good, decent and likeable. Even among those who like Richardson (and I do find him a chore), Grandison is a dull book. Readers have described his goodness as repellent, many have just said he’s boring. Seeing as the book is over 1500 pages long, I shall not be rushing to it.

While it’s unfortunate that our pal Kermit doesn’t have many roles available in eighteenth century literature, I say that’s probably a good thing, and those books are the better for having big, unlikeable characters than Sir Charles Blandisons. Likeable is overrated, I say.

Goldsmith on Puffins

 Last Wednesday was half term and a gloriously sunny day so my parents and I went to Bempton Cliffs in Yorkshire to see the nesting seabirds.

The place was packed with guillemots, razorbills and kittiwakes. We saw gannets performing their strange bowing, head-shaking and beak-fencing behaviours, and we also looked for puffins. Those adorable, colourful beaked fellas are really quite hard to see. They’re smaller than many of the other birds, have a tendency to nest deeper in the crevices and didn’t gather the same way the others did, scattered among the rest. I hear this isn’t the case in ‘puffin islands’ like Anglesey and Lundy, but it was the case at the cliffs in Bempton.

We looked and looked, enjoying the antics of all the other birds, the bright, blue sky and the turquoise sea and eventually our patience had results, we saw puffins. A few were chilling on the cliffs, whilst others flew around, their hurried flapping noticeable against the more relaxed flying of the other birds. It was pretty magical. 

Oliver Goldsmith, in his An History of the Earth and Animated Nature describes puffins, and it seems, unlike some of the other entries, that he might have even seen some before. He says that, “words cannot easily describe the form of the bill of the puffin,' before giving a paragraph on the size, shape and colour of it, warning that it “bites most terribly”.

Goldsmith describes how the birds nest in burrows and holes situated up large cliffs but that they aren’t terribly good flyers and sometimes need to make several tries to fly up to their nests. He also describes how a small number of puffins appear to scout out an area before the larger force comes (maybe it was these scouts we saw).

He says how puffins descend on Anglesey, kicking rabbits out of their burrows and making a nuisance. He then talks about a subject which never ceases to amuse me in his natural history book, whether puffins make good food or not. He describes the meat as rank, unless well salted and pickled and says how the church exempted the puffin from being described as meat on feast days.

Moving away from the description of puffin-meat, he celebrates their indefatigability, that after being preyed on and hunted by humans and other animals, they always come back in as many numbers as before.

I love reading An History of the Earth and Animated Nature for the odd and outdated details some of the entries contain, like the description of their meat, but (if Goldsmith’s sources are correct) I did also learn a little of the hard life of a puffin.

It was a pleasure to meet a few.