Skip to main content

Authors? What do you do all day?

I was rather inspired by the short series Evan Davis (one of the BBC's treasures, I feel) did on how Britain pays its way, called Made in Britain. Okay, it was a bit heavy on stunts, like Davis taking a ride in a jet fighter or a Davis-stand in doing a rooftop chase (see below) - but it was enjoyable and helpful in encouraging us to think about whether we should stand around bemoaning our loss of manufacturing, or get on with earning export revenue regardless.

The programme divided the opportunities for making money into three - manufacturing, intellectual property and services. Davis argued that we actually do more manufacturing than we think - it's just that we have moved to more high end, high price manufacturing - and that we should not discount the importance of the other two. On the IP side, for example, he showed how chip designer ARM makes loads of export money without manufacturing anything. On the service side too there were hidden exports which happen within the UK, as when, for example, a foreigner buys and staffs a house in London.

It inspired me to think about us writers. When the bureaucrats do the export statistics, do they remember us? After all, quite a lot of my books go to other countries, and then there are rights deals were a foreign publisher buys the rights to produce a local version, another hidden export. I also wondered just what it is that we authors do in terms of those three headings. Obviously there is an intellectual property component in producing the content of the book - and when it is sold as an ebook, I guess it is almost entirely IP. But a paper book also involves manufacturing, often still in the UK. And to complete the set, most authors offer the service of giving talks (though this is less likely to involve exports).

All in all, I'm rather proud of the contribution us authors make to Britain. We might not have made Evan's programme, but we're in there in all his sectors, turning brainpower into cash. So authors, next time someone asks you what you do all day you can proudly say 'I'm responsible for manufacturing, intellectual property and services earnings for Britain.' Or at least you can think it - you'd probably sound a bit silly saying it.


Popular posts from this blog

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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope