Podcasting into the darkness

I appeared last night as a guest on the Litopia after Dark podcast, a weekly chat show on writing and writers hosted by (my) literary agent, Peter Cox of the Redhammer agency.

Featuring Peter, regulars Donna Ballman and Dave Bartram, and with children's writer Amanda Lees and myself as guests on this particular show, it's a mix of serious discussion and fun book-based games. Apparently it's listened to by 12,000 to 15,000 people (numbers doubling every quarter).

We had a great time - there were some technical glitches (I particularly liked when Peter had to re-record an intro along the lines of 'it may all go disastrously wrong but it hasn't yet') and at least two of us were well medicated for heavy colds, but we all had fun.

It's difficult to be clear about numbers listening - they're based on downloads/streaming numbers, but of course plenty of copies could be downloaded without ever being listened to. Even so, it suggests there are a fair number of people out there who are interested in writers and writing. Personally, when I've listened, I preferred the serious discussion to the games - apparently the games are the most popular bit in listener feedback, but I suspect that reflects the kind of person who gives feedback, not a good cross section of the audience. Don't get me wrong - I love playing the games, and think there's good entertainment in one where the guests have to pitch existing books in a new way, but I'm not sure about a 20 questions style guess the author/character game. Even so it's a podcast that's well worth picking up on.

Litopia After Dark is a companion to the five-days-a-week Litopia Daily podcast that Peter and his team put together. This also makes great listening for anyone interested in writing. Initially this was a trifle hit and miss, but now the team has settled into it I find it a really valuable addition to my coffee break and would be sad to be without it.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog