The Ghosts of Departed Books

When you're writing a book it's very clear in your mind. It's with you all the time. And then they're all too present when they're being edited, a process that carries on after they leave your hands when first the editor, then the copy editor, then the proof reader all force your attention on the text. Finally, your book has to be very firmly present when it hits the bookshops. There might be interviews or readings or talks - it's essential to know your stuff.

But after that the books drift into a sort of literary twilight. You never lose them entirely, but they fade, displaced by the new project, the new enthusiasm. Some stay alive for me because I give talks based on them, but others have no such life support.

And that's where a dissonance creeps in. When a reader buys your book, however many years after you wrote it, it is still fresh and new to them like a hot loaf straight from the oven, where to you it may have become a ghost in the autumn mists of the creative act. (Apologies for coming over a touch literary, I have just been reading Ray Bradbury, and it's hard to shake it off.)

This morning I had an email from the a reader of a book I wrote back in 1999 and really had to work back mentally to reach that book. It wasn't a bad experience - it's great hearing from readers - but it was still a shock to the system, a sort of 'did I write that?' moment. Then it all came back and I was able to answer her question. But for that brief period of time, I did feel visited by a ghost.

PS Five meaningless points to anyone who can spot the mathematical reference involving a philosopher/bishop in the title of this post.

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