The Adventure of the Missing Detective

Aliya Whiteley, a writer friend of mine - and editor of the best bits of Déjà Vu - emails me to say that 'The Adventure of the Missing Detective: And 25 of the Year's Finest Crime and Mystery Stories!' is now available to order from Amazon (it's not released for a while though). It contains stories by Jeffery Deaver, Val McDermid, Joyce Carol Oates, and Aliya herself.

I haven't read Aliya's contribution, but if her track record is anything to go by, it should be fantastic. And with those other top-flight authors, what are you waiting for? If you order fast, you can get 10% off!

Review of Déjà Vu posted on Debra Hamel's review blog

I had a nice email waiting for me this morning. Debra Hamel writes to tell me she has posted a glowing review of Déjà Vu. I've been reading Debra's review blog for a long time; she consistently produces informative and entertaining reviews, and I would recommend her blog to anyone. You can read the full review here. A nice aspect of Debra's column is that it is syndicated to Amazon.com (not .uk), so I've got another review there.

I can't resist presenting a snippet:

The plot of Déjà Vu is intricate enough to leave readers pondering its twists long after they've finished it. Déjà Vu is a smart read filled with clever, fresh dialogue.

And don't call me Shirley

Though I've moaned about it before, here I go again: Writing comedy is hard. In the curious n-dimensional space of comedy fiction, only one path is funny; all others will elicit "Eh?", "What?" and/or the slapping sound of a palm meeting forehead. So most days spent writing a comedy novel are days of mourning as dead jokes are removed and buried. The good jokes, meanwhile, weaken with repetition until you're sure the whole book is about as funny as a housing contract. If you're very lucky, the book might contain three or four gags that still raise a smile, even when you're proofreading for the fourth time.

The book I'm currently writing is called Proper Job, and since finishing the first, bloated draft at the start of the summer, I have worked over (the violent metaphor is appropriate, trust me) the draft about ten times. The first draft was around 85,000 words. Now it's down to - let me check - 71,000. I've deleted one or two scenes and reshuffled others, but most of those 14,000 words are deleted jokes. When you think about it, 14,000 words contain a lot of jokes.

Since this is my first comedy novel, I have, naturally enough, a suspicion that the novel isn't funny at all. (I've since had my girlfriend, who is a tough critic, read it through and pronounce it funny, but the doubt still remains because the possibility remains.)

So I was quite buoyed by a purchase I made earlier this week: the film Airplane! on DVD. This film, from 1979 and starring Leslie Nielsen among others, ranks as a comedy classic for most people. I saw it again and again as kid, and gags from the film became a secret language for my cadre of friends. I think it's probably the funniest film I've ever seen, though Top Secret comes a close second. It must be added that being an adolescent male at the time of first viewing put me in a good position to appreciate some of the humour!

I bought the DVD to get some perspective on Proper Job - i.e. remind myself of the level of quality I need to aim for, even if I miss by a mile - but the real treasure on this DVD is the director's commentary. For those who aren't familiar with this feature, such a commentary comprises one or two people (usually the writer and director) discussing aspects of the film as it unfolds. It was great morale booster to hear the three writer/directors (Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker) cringe at the jokes that didn't work, explain some of the obscurer references, and talk about the development of the film.

The original cut was long - more than three hours. Over the course of several months, the directors tested and tested and tested the film in front of preview audiences. They cut gag after gag. The movie shrank. They recorded the audience reaction during early screenings and cut the film together with this 'laugh track' so that they could be sure that they had included the funniest bits. The final running time was 78 minutes.

I've been working over the manuscript of Proper Job for so long (it's taken all my spare time since last Christmas) that I've grown pretty sick of it, but hearing the director's commentary for this great comedy film has reassured me that, even when the product is a straight, fast-paced piece of fun, you can only get this kind of product when you invest the necessary time and energy. That means feedback and lots of it, a ruthless attitude to the bits that don't work, and a genuine belief in what you're doing. That isn't easy, and it isn't meant to be. You forge a good knife by beating the shit out of it, by folding the metal again and again until you're knackered. And then, the next day, you get up and do it again.

In my case, the result may or may not amount to much. But it certainly worked for the guys who put together Airplane!, so I'll crack on.

-----

Written while listening to Starry Eyed Surprise from the album "Bunkka" by Paul Oakenfold

Hamlet text adventure

This rocks http://www.robinjohnson.f9.co.uk/adventure/hamlet.html. Ah, for the lost treasures of Infocom.

I have:
No tea

New short fiction and poetry podcast

In an exciting development, UKAuthors, an online writing community/workshop, has set up a podcast (what's a podcast?) of member's work.

Subscribe to the podcast here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Ukaudio

A snapshot of reviews for a small-press book

Well, today I was excited to receive the 200th anniversary issue of Interzone, a British science fiction magazine of some repute. It usually contains a few good stories and some book reviews. This time round, one of the reviewers looked at my novel, Déjà Vu.

Two words: hatchet job. This guy did not like the book. He's a reviewer who puts ideas above character, and that's fine - there are some great books that do that. My book, however, puts people above ideas, and that might be where I and the reviewer part company. One other thing: Without exception, the many reviewers who have looked at my book have commented on the powerful ending. This guy, by contrast, thinks it's 'unsatisfying'. I'm perplexed, but since this was one of those bite-sized capsule reviews, it isn't easy to dig deeper into his reasoning. He just found unsatisfying. Shrug.

Am I angry? Well, obviously. Do I feel that the world is unfair on poor Ian? No. I can't expect the every person who reads my book to like it, though it's a source of irritation that one of those who doesn't like it happens to be a reviewer with a wide readership. This is part of the publishing game. Plenty of writers with books better than mine barely get noticed.

This blog - whose readership does not approach even a tiny fraction of the Interzone readership, clearly - provides a useful conduit for making lemonade out of this particular lemon. So I've decided the time is right for a snapshot of all my reviews.

On the basis of how much a reviewer liked my book, I've given a review a score (except in the case of SFX, which gave me a point score that I've directly converted). I'm aware that this is a subjective method, but I've tried to be as honest as possible. 0% means the reviewer thought my book was a piece of shit. 100% means they were about as enthusiastic as one could possibly be without seeming rabid. For example, while Ken MacLeod described Déjà Vu wonderfully, he did give me some constructive criticism for parts of the book. I've given his review a score of 80%. You can read excerpts and links to all my reviews here. One online review is - unashamedly - not included in that list: Cheryl Morgan's hatchet job. (As an aside, I've commented before that I think Morgan's review is a not bad one; we disagree, but her points are intelligent and well-argued; I don't include it in my review list because, let's face it, a review list is a piece of advertising and a potential reader might not share my broader perspective. I've given Morgan's review 30%.)

For most of these analyses, I've removed reviews received by email because these came from authors who were kind enough to read my book and email me about it. Some authors did not reply, and it is likely that these authors did not like my book. This means that the ratings I generated from author emails may not be representative; they may skew the results higher than warranted.

What's the overall review score for Déjà Vu?

79%.

How do the reviews break down?

View the summary (PDF).

Is there a difference in reviews between the major (wide readership) and minor (narrow readership) publishers?

I've classed 7 of my reviews as major and 4 as minor (a further 4, reviews by email, were not classified). The average review score for major review publications is 58%, whereas the average for minor publications is 92%. However, when the two hatchet jobs are removed from the major reviews, the average for this group rises to 75%. Is the difference between the major and minor reviewers reliable? I don't have enough data to tell, but I would guess it is. It's worth noting that the average score for reviews I've garnered from personal communications with authors (i.e. those writers actually out there, writing) is 95%.

How does review score vary with type of publication (physical newspaper, physical magazine, blog, or web magazine)?

Here are the review scores by publication type:

Physical newspaper: 90% (from 2 reviews)
Blog: 90% (from 2 reviews)
Web magazine: 73% (from 4 reviews)
Physical magazine: 53% (from 3 reviews)

The physical newspaper score is high, but it should be remembered that this category contains only two instances (The Guardian and Exepose), both of which were very positive. The blogs are high too. The web magazine category is pretty good when one considers that Morgan's hatchet job is included. Lastly, the physical magazine score is the lowest; this is s function of Lewis's hatchet job and a mediocre score for a review in SFX (which was scored 3/5 by the reviewer). Again, there are not enough data to tell if these differences are statistically reliable.

Does it make a difference if the reviewer/publication is specialist (only reviews sci fi) or non-specialist (reviews all genres)?

Of my reviews, 9 would be described as specliast, 6 as non-specialist. Here I will also include the emails from established authors because they are, I would argue, rather more specialist than the specialist reviewers of science fiction publications.

The average review score for non-specialist reviewers is 90%. The average for specialist reviewers is 72%. This second average is brought down by two hatchet jobs, and with these removed, the average increases to more respectable 87%.

What conclusions can be drawn?

Well, the first thing to note is that my sample size is small, so we need to be careful about any generalizations. It might also be true that Déjà Vu is not representative of all science fiction books, or books in general. However, there are one or two things suggested by the data.

If reviewers were doing their job right, we would expect small variability in their review scores (because with increasing agreement comes less variability). An average score of 75% with a variability statistic (standard deviation) of 25% suggests that reviewers have very different opinions of my book. This is more evidence to back up the common sense notion that a reader should read more than one review of a book if that reader wants increase his or her accuracy of the book's 'quality' (whatever that is) prior to publication.

The review scores were higher for publications with a smaller readership (according to my classification), so a writer might want to send review copies to these publications. However, this is negated somewhat when one considers the impact factor of 'major' publications such as The Guardian.

Specialist reviewers were, in general, harder on my book, so a writer might wish to submit to a publication that is non genre-specific. Of course, the reality is that an author will take a review where he or she can get it, and specialist magazines and websites might be only outlet to consider a first-timer's work.

So, that's a snapshot of the current state of reviews for my book. A mixed bag, generally positive, and about as good as an author can hope for.

-----

Written while listening to Puppen Weinen Nicht from the album "Ndw1/3" by Combo Colossale

Here be Dragons

A couple of days ago, I posted a taste of the first chapter to Deja Vu's sequel. In it I described intruders making entry to the flat of Detective Saskia Brandt. The snippet ended with Saskia reaching for her revolver, spinning the barrel, and snapping it shut. The entry elicited a comment from dscarpenter.

Just a nitpick: The barrel on a revolver doesn't spin, the cylinder does. Also, outside of a movie, nobody actually spins the cylinder of a revolver before action. You can't fire a revolver with the cylinder open. All you can do is accidentally spill your bullets on the floor.

This brought home to me the fact that I've never used a gun, and it's somewhat cheeky of me to write novels that involve their use so heavily. Many thanks to D. S. Carpenter, who appears to write naval fiction and has a very interesting website. I'll try not to repeat my mistake!

There is a broader issue here. A writer is charged with creating a believable world, but this is not as straightforward as it might appear. In the first pages of a book - and perhaps even on the cover - the writer and reader form an unspoken contract. Explicitly, the contract is something like this: "I, the writer, promise to set up a world where X is true; from there, everything I write will flow from this premise". This translates into the idea that, as a writer, you're free to create a world in which young boys named Harry Potter are revealed to be wizards, but you have to do it quickly, not half way through. Genre must be set immediately. Books where genres switch part way through (such as one of my favourite books this year, Cloud Atlas) seem to evince howls of betrayal from many readers. To summarize: once you've left the ground, you can't change the ground rules.

When I write my next technothriller, I can confidently state that Saskia Brandt has a chip in her brain that imposes a donor personality on her mind, but I must not mix up the barrel and the cylinder in her revolver. The contract between the reader and the writer is open to interpretation, of course. One reviewer thought that my novel suffered from an incorrect description of airport procedure. Because I had set the story in the near future, it needed to be accurate on these details; a book set further in the future could not as easily be held to the same charge. The reviewer was correct; I should have got it right. I would argue, of course, that I did indeed get the procedure right, but that's all water under bridges now :-)

It's true to say, I think, that it is the responsibility of a writer to get the facts right, but it's a difficult balance to strike between the reader who thinks, "Wait a minute, a dragon couldn't fly because its wings could never overcome its mass!" and the one who thinks, "Ahhhh...flying dragons. Look at them go."

Déjà Vu Reviews

'A crisply-written, fast-paced thriller that makes assured use of cutting-edge science fiction ideas.'

--- Ken MacLeod, best-selling author of The Star Fraction.

'What makes Déjà Vu interesting is the understated, almost 1950s feeling Hocking brings to what is essentially a post-cyberpunk novel about murder and identity. His layering of the narrative is thoughtful and the way he makes events from different decades mirror each other shows quiet skill. This is a small-press publication; as such, it probably won't get the exposure it deserves. Larger publishers may want to take note.'

--- Jon Courtenay Grimwood, The Guardian [read in full]

'I was enthralled and contagiously compelled to carry on throughout. The level of computerisation of daily life is plausible and handled with casual panache. It's gripping, fascinating, and powerful, and really well written, with wonderful pace.'

--- Ian Watson, screenwriter Artificial Intelligence: AI

'The thriller element would hold its own with most of the books we sell in quantity. The chase scenes have great pace and the airport scene is particularly good I think. The characterisation, often a flaw in this sort of fiction, was very strong, especially in the lead characters. They were human, not just plot devices. How most of the scifi elements blended in with the story quite well. Often the many gadgets and bits of technology in scifi books can jar but concepts such as Ego and the credit card transactions felt natural and realistic. The ending and how the last couple of chapters linked everything together - the oxtail soup was a nice touch - left me impressed as I put the book down which is a good place to be.'

--- Scott Pack, Waterstone's

'The novel mixes real and virtual worlds with an absorbing near-future thriller narrative and intriguing ruminations on the nature of memory and self and has genuine cross-over appeal beyond the SF&F genre. The reviews he’s picked up ... point to a new voice in Brit SF that we should all be taking an interest in.'

--- Joe Gordon, Forbidden Planet International [read in full]

'An interesting debut novel that successfully blends cyberpunk and technothriller and presents a few good sci-fi ideas along the way. ...The scenes set inside the digital world developed by Proctor and his partner Bruce Shimoda are particularly impressive. [This book] suggests that Hocking (whose first novel this is) can create interesting scenarios. There are some inventive and witty AI conceits, and Hocking's near-future world is neatly extrapolated from ours.'

--- Andy Sawyer, The Alien Online [read in full]

'A multi-threaded, thought-provoking sci-fi thriller. The story balances technology and people nicely, having the right mixture of both - the character building doesn’t overshadow the technology, and visa versa. There are some well thought out uses for technology, some of which I think are unique. Interaction between the characters is well thought out. It is always a nice suprise to see a debut novel such as Déjà Vu. Thoroughly recommended.'

--- Richard Hawkins, SciFi.uk.com [read in full]

'Déjà Vu is a pacey, crisply-written thriller set in a plausible near future. A clever blending of traditional SF tropes with cyberpunk shadings, there are some intriguing notions and a skilfully woven mystery element. Ian Hocking’s debut novel displays both sound scientific extrapolation and a mature confidence.'

--- Stan Nicholls

'I found Déjà Vu to be fast-paced, complex, ambitious, and written in a mature, clean-lined style that belied its status as a first novel. I felt that it trod a careful line between the all-comers accessibility of the contemporary thriller, and the more targeted ideas-driven pleasures of genre SF. In the first of these areas I found the principal characters real-feeling and engaging, while in the second the of issues of identity and personality were given a treatment that was detailed and fresh and which genuinely -- to my eye at least -- seemed to break new ground. All in all, I thought it an enviable debut.'

--- Stephen Gallagher, novelist and screenwriter

'Excellent...crisp and professional. This book bodes well for the future.'

--- Michael Allen (aka Grumpy Old Bookman) [read in full]

'A smart read filled with clever, fresh dialogue. The plot of Déjà Vu is intricate enough to leave readers pondering its twists long after they've finished it.'

--- Debra Hamel, book-blog.com [read in full]

'Get ready to have a mind-blowing experience. [This is] one mighty potent story, my friends. [I was] enthralled. Save this book for when you can isolate yourself and dedicate some time to a thought-provoking experience. This is good stuff.'

--- POD Girl [read in full]

'A fast-moving science fiction thriller. ...The book's real strength is not its imaginative look at the future of science, although this is fascinating, but the way the writer is able to make the disorientation the characters feel affect the reader. It is a gripping story told in a smart, simple manner. ...This may be a sci-fi book, but its strengths are the traditional virtues of any good book; namely, characters and plot. I imagine that Ian Hocking could turn his hand to more than one genre, and I have high hopes for his next book. Déjà Vu is an adventurous but unpretentious and very impressive debut.'

--- Exeposé [read in full]

'This is a science fiction novel. This is a chase novel. This is a multi-stranded, complicated novel that defies understanding at times, but is still fully involving and provides a very clever and satisfying denouement. This novel works. The writer's style is consistent with his content and the story fairly speeds along. It is confusing at times, but that is only because we are not given all the facts at once. This means that when we do find out what has been going on, we can happily exclaim, "Of course!" Science fiction does not work for everyone and this book, with its sentient computers, nano-technology and brain-wipes, will not be to all tastes. It was to mine, though, and, if you're that way inclined, I confidently predict it will be to yours too.'

--- Tregolwyn Book Reviews [read in full]

'It's well written...lots of action, some violence, plenty of clues and motifs hinting at what is to come, but enough suspense to keep you turning the page. ...I think the author is too good a writer to get trapped in the pigeonhole (black hole?) of SF.'

--- Exeter Flying Post

Last post

Apologies for the rather egotistical nature of the last post. Normal service will resume shortly...

'Finishing' a novel

Well, my 'current' novel, 'Poper Job' - a comedy set in Cornwall - is now at the 'beta' stage and being read by my girlfriend for comprehensibility/general what-the-hell-is-going-on-ness. This is the second draft, and it equates to a half-arsed rough cut where half the jokes don't work (it'll be their last chance to get funny in the next draft; if they don't have me rolling on the floor by then, they'll be left on the cutting room floor).


After another draft, and some vicious scrubbing behind the ears, I should be in a position to kick it out the door. Then I can get started trying to snag an agent for it, or a publisher, but hopefully both.


I'm in a curious position at the moment. My previously published novel, the technothriller Deja Vu (apologies for missing diacritical marks; I'm using new blogging software), has been published to some acclaim and is selling better than I had anticipated given the size and marketing budget of my publisher. I don't, however, have an agent, and I'm aware that it would be a good idea to get one.


What are my chances? Same as anyone else's: slim. But I'm very confident in my new novel, Proper Job, and I'm convinced that all I need to do is get somebody to read it. Once done, I'm pretty sure I'll make the sale.


The difficulty in this business is getting people to read your work. It's understandable, of course, given the huge ratio of supply to demand, but it's very frustrating to be an individual lost in that sea of stuff washing up on the desks of publishers each day. I knew with Deja Vu that I had - fundamentally - a good story with good characters (this has been borne out by reviews that were 90% positive; only one hatchet job, here, which I think makes some good points), and I would get a sale if an agent or publisher could be convinced to read it. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get an agent to read more than three chapters. The one publisher that did read the whole thing was the UKA Press, and they went on to publish me.


The slightly rambling point I'm trying to make is that, with luck, it should be easier to get agents and publishers look at the manuscript this time around: I'm armed with good reviews, loaded with a track record, and dangerous. If an agent/publisher rejects the manuscript after requesting the whole thing to read, I'll be very happy, because it's more likely that their opinion has been fully informed. A fair crack at the whip is about as much as one can expect.


And then what? Well, this, the first paragraph of the sequel to Deja Vu. I wrote this yesterday morning. Our heroine, from the year 2023, is trapped in the year 2003. We find her in her flat in Berlin.

Chapter One


They came for Saskia Brandt in the night. She was sleeping, as lightly as ever, on a huge bed above the living room of her flat. The duvet was tangled around her feet. The night was hot and pressed against her head; she dreamed that she was at the bottom of the sea. She broke through the surface of her sleep and took a full breath. Otherwise, she did not move.


In the corner of her room, a computer screen flashed blue three times. Saskia put her hand behind the headboard and pulled her revolver from its holster. She spun the barrel once and opened her eyes.

Who are the men? What do they want? Has Saskia been expecting them? I'll let you know when I find out myself.