An Interview with Proper Job’s Narrator, Dave Bignell

My audiobook, Proper Job, is finally finished! It is somewhat redundant to say that it wouldn’t exist without my producer/actor, Dave Bignell, but without his help, enthusiasm, and perseverance, and creative input, I wouldn’t be as proud of the final product.

Since producing an audiobook is a dark art, I thought I’d interview Dave for my blog.

Can you tell a bit about your background, and how you ended up working as an audio producer and voice actor for Audible?

I’ve worked as an actor for theatre, television, radio and film. I had the amazing opportunity to supply a voice over to a National Geographic programme and host a radio station; I thoroughly enjoyed the process which opened my mind to a whole new dimension of ‘acting’.

I worked as a drama teacher in London and my commute involved walking across Hyde Park. I used to listen to audiobooks on my journey and was captivated by the wonderful stories and narrators. When I heard about the opportunity to produce audiobooks I thought, that sounds great, how difficult can that be….?!? 

What made you audition for Proper Job?

Comedy is an extremely difficult thing to pull off, especially in a book. After reading a few pages of ‘Proper Job’ I knew that Ian Hocking was in full command of a) telling a compelling story and b) making the reader laugh. It would also be fair to say that ‘Proper Job’ appealed to my own sarcastic and surreal sense of humour.

On what basis do you decide on how to deliver a character’s voice? I can remember being very surprised by the character of ‘Madame’! A perfect rendition, but not at all as I’d imagined her speaking…

Often I have a very clear idea of what a character should sound like in my head, but my vocal chords don’t always follow suit! So it is often a compromise of both!

In my opinion, the characters must all sound different in some way so that the audience does not get confused about who is speaking. In order to do this I have to ensure that I can sustain that voice and that it does not change from chapter to chapter. 

How do you maintain what might be termed ‘continuity’ in TV in film, i.e. keeping a consistent performance across multiple takes/sections of an audiobook?

The most difficult thing is to ensure your characters’ voices are consistent throughout; for each character I write a short hand for myself of how they sound – sometimes they are based on people I know (you’ll have to guess which characters are the ones I know!) The great advantage I have however is that I can of course listen back to a previous recording to remind myself of how a character sounds. 

Not to fish for compliments, but what was the best thing about doing the Proper Job audiobook? In other words, what kept you going across all those months?

Haha! Excellent question. For me, although ‘Proper Job’ is a comedy, the story is very honest, very ‘real’ and at times, very touching.

After each recording of a chapter, I would send the recording to Ian for his approval and he would email me back his notes. These notes were essential, ensuring my delivery and timings were enhancing the comedy. I enjoyed this collaboration with Ian, always pushing me and the audiobook and I am extremely happy with the end result.

What was the most difficult aspect?

Sustaining accents and swapping between multiple characters in a conversation! It is very difficult to go from a Welsh accent to a Cornish accent etc without one bleeding into another. Also, sometimes I can sit in front of the microphone and record pages and pages with no errors, other times I will be tripping over every other line and have to keep stopping and starting, there was never any pattern to it, just sometimes my brain didn’t seem to be in full control! 

Which other audiobooks have you produced?

Broken Mirror and the sequel, Broken Mind written by Oliver Rixon. Alternative Dimension written by Bill Kirton and Blood and Silk, written by Jeffrey Love.

Anything else you’d like to plug?

Probably my photography blog.


Thanks again to Dave for making the experience so worthwhile.

Clarke Award 1: The Strange and The New

I’m making myself a hostage to fortune by implying, in the title, that I’ll review each of the Clarke Award finalists, but that’s what I’m intending to do.

First, Michel Faber’s The Book of Strange New Things.

What fascinates me about Strange New Things is the contrast between the lavish treatment by the critical establishment and my own reaction to it, which is much cooler. M John Harrison (whose work I’ve always found self-consciously unorthodox but in a good way), writes that the novel is ‘deeply affecting’.

David Mitchell, another writer I admire, has blurbed:

Michel Faber’s second masterpiece, quite different to The Crimson Petal and The White but every bit as luminescent and memorable. It is a portrait of a living, breathing relationship, frayed by distance. It is an enquiry into the mountains faith can move and the mountains faith can’t move. It is maniacally gripping.

Before I set down my thoughts, here’s a thumbnail of the story: a young, evangelical priest called Peter is selected to bring Christianity to aliens on the planet Oasis. He does so, while his marital relationship deteriorates over email.

One difficulty I had with Strange New Things concerns the ‘strange’. The aliens are not very. Strange, that is. They are, indeed, startlingly familiar, and so is their planet, in as much as it is human-habitable atmosphere-, gravity-, and nutrition-wise. Nothing wrong with that (Star Trek gets away with it, as did Iain Banks), but it jars against the grounded, realistic England Faber describes at the beginning of the story—if we take the representation of Earth seriously, why not the planet Oasis?

And then there’s the banality of the human outpost. It has all the character of provincial airport. Again, nothing wrong with that in itself, but banality and boredom are toxic elements to stir into your fiction; you need to be careful making the reader understand that a character is feeling bored, or that a place is banal, by making the reader feel the same way. I don’t want to be bored.

Speaking as what religious people term an ‘atheist’, I found it refreshing to read a book from the perspective of a Christian, particularly in a science fiction context. It was a real shame that opportunities for friction between his beliefs and his experiences—particularly the technological ones—remained unexplored, basically because the character, as written, is uninterested in how the world works. He’s only interested in propagating Christian beliefs, and the Oasans make this easy for him.

M John Harrison again:

This is a big novel – partly because it has to construct and explain its unhomely setting, partly because it has such a lot of religious, linguistic, philosophical and political freight to deliver – but the reader is pulled through it at some pace by the gothic sense of anxiety that pervades and taints every element.

Without wishing to make an unfair comparison, check out Tolstoy’s Ana Karenina if you want a novel truly freighted with ideas. Two of his characters can discuss psychology in the context of the philosophy of mind and cover just as much ground, and more effectively, as scholarly works on the subject. En passant, Tolstoy theory-checks pretty much most of the modern psychological literature, blazing well ahead of Freud. And he tells a story at the same time. Much of the wordcount of Strange New Things can be attributed to characters moving from A to B, and having meandering conversations—which sometimes happen while they’re moving from A to B.

There is one compelling idea in the novel, but I can’t tell you what it is without ruining the story. It comes too late, however, for Faber to pay explicit attention to it. A re-read might bring up interesting foreshadows.

Overall, it’s a novel with a saleable premise—‘missionary in space’—but an execution that consciously sands-down the ‘new’ and bases the ‘strange’ on what is, essentially, the familiar.