Sacrifice for Writing

a goat.

sex...I'd rather snuggle up in bed with a notebook and a cup of horlicks jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I guess I could've got qualified in a safely pensionable job instead of focusing my entire academic career on becoming a better writer. But it's not really a sacrifice. I mean, writing's just the thing, isn't it?

My sanity. Writing has hit me all of a sudden and i feel i have tons of stuff to get out, but don't quite know how to do it. Enjoying it in a masochistic sort of way though!

You want proof I killed a goat, do you think I took photos! that's sick. Besides my uncanny writing skills should be proof enough, here I am without any of the normal advantages of a writer, no unhappy childhood, no education in anything other than the sciences, never did anything remotely interesting, ever, yet still putting one word after another almost as if I knew what they all meant. And helloooo cherry. I havent really (not counting the goat) sacrificed more than a whole lot of tv watching. The number of times I've had the chance to go out and do something else but decided to stay in and do writing can be counted on the fingers of no hands. But then, it's a good week if I write more than a paragraph.

I sacrificed going to university to become a journalist after doing A-Levels. This didn't hurt my career at all but it did mean I didn't have a Pot Noodle until I was 23.

"...here I am without any of the normal advantages of a writer, no unhappy childhood, no education in anything other than the sciences" Ah Maddan - I too have those serious handicaps although I do have mental health and addiction issues as strings on my bow. Perhaps one day I shall sit in coffee shops and bars that sport local abstract art on the walls, looking vaguely bohemian and boring to tears just about everyone who can stand to listen with the progress of my novel and how poor I am in a poverty-is-cool-doing-it-for-love sort of way. Then I'll know I have truly sacrificed it all for writing. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Don't think I've sacrificed anything. There are lots of other things I could have spent my time doing, I suppose. But if I'd done an accountancy degree, as was strongly suggested to me, I'd probably have dropped out or failed. Ability doesn't come into it - I can't do things well if I don't want to do them. "here I am without any of the normal advantages of a writer, no unhappy childhood..." I doubt that's much of an advantage! The biggest advantage a writer can have, in my cynical opinion, is being a wine-quaffing, upper middle class Londoner with friends in publishing.

"The biggest advantage a writer can have, in my cynical opinion, is being a wine-quaffing, upper middle class Londoner with friends in publishing." ooh, nearly there.

"The biggest advantage a writer can have, in my cynical opinion, is being a wine-quaffing, upper middle class Londoner with friends in publishing." Having worked in publishing for 7 years I do have friends in publishing. I've quaffed muchas quantities of wine but I no longer do so and I haven't actually written anything to publish!!! Gautam Malkani, until recently was a colleague of mine (although in a big newspaper I never spoke to the guy once - he's head of Creative Business so I wouldn't) - he joined Pearson publishing as a graduate from Cambridge. His forthcoming book 'Londonstani' which caused a bit of a stir at the Frankfurt book fair has just been sold to 'Fourth Estate' after a fierce bidding war. I think it is far more likely that this ordinary middle-class Asian lad with a precocious talent is enjoying a well earned success through hard work and a bit of luck rather than cashed in on his media and publishing contacts to get the deal. Certainly having contacts helps but I don't think it is the primary factor. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Mr Malkani wasn't the perfect example to disprove Jon's cynicism.

probably not! Definitely not - I just selected him as somebody with a similar background to myself - Not-White, middle class, old University educated ended up working for the FT... The big difference between us is that he's written a good book and I haven't - of course if I write a heap-of-shite book, talk to a few people who know people in the business and get my crock of crap published with a huge advance I'll take it back! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Hmm. I'm talking 'advantages' rather than 'guarantees'. If you're a writer, it is advantageous to be a wine-quaffing upper-middle class Londoner with friends in publishing. It is also advantageous to be a precocious talent, and have written a novel that you have every confidence in. But the greater advantage of the two, in my opinion, is the former. Which is to say, I believe a wine-quaffing upper-middle class Londoner with friends in publishing but no talent whatsoever has a better chance of being published than a talented writer who does not quaff wine, live in London or have friends in publishing. The foundation for this belief is the number of crap books published by crap authors whose biographies strongly suggest they are wine-quaffing upper-middle class Londoners. The 'friends in publishing' part is conjecture. If an author has both going for him (as may well be the case with this Malkani chap,) then he is getting very close to being guaranteed a future in writing. I should also add that these advantages are nowhere near enough if the writer in question also lacks a degree of arrogance, ambition and commitment. And when I say 'friends in publishing', I'm thinking of friends with a degree of influence. Just to be thorough.

Ah thank you for explaining Jack. I agree with you except that I think the latter not the former has the greater advantage. Perhaps I am just on a pink cloud of cheery good faith and optimism! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

...and regarding friends with influence I once snogged someone on the board of directors (interestingly it was at a 'do' in Frankfurt - everyone was out there for the book fair) at one of London's top agents - does that count?!!! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

If these are the only possibilities for a writer in England, then I'm glad as hell I don't live there. I know a number of talented and well published writers, none of which are "wine-quaffing upper-middle class" nor "precocious talents". Most I know are just regular folks trying to make a living. But, I suppose if one believes that acquiring such a preconceived persona with these particular characteristics will actually land them a publishing deal, go for it. I will admit though, I do like a good wine but I'm not too keen on whiners.

I've been quaffing wine all evening and I still havent been published. What am I doing wrong?

'Education is an advantage - the biggest advantage anyone can get.' What about Bernard of 'Bernard's Magic Watch' fame? He had a watch that could stop time. That's a pretty big advantage.

"Which is to say, I believe a wine-quaffing upper-middle class Londoner with friends in publishing but no talent whatsoever has a better chance of being published than a talented writer who does not quaff wine, live in London or have friends in publishing." I think this is an over-extension of a point that's broadly correct but obviously there's a difference between getting published and managing to sell some copies of your book and/or get taken seriously be anyone other than your immediate circle of friends. "it really is true that if a writer is good they will be published one day." This is a nice idea, and believing it is probably good for the soul, but I don't think it's borne out by evidence or logic. Rightly or wrongly, making friends with publishers, magazine editors and other people in positions of power is almost as big part a of being a successful writer as being good at writing. That's not to say that I think lots of well-connected wine quaffers who are crap at writing will ultimately acheive any significant or lasting success but there's logical no reason why good writers should necessarily end up being published if they aren't able to handle the non-writing elements of the job.

"But, I suppose if one believes that acquiring such a preconceived persona with these particular characteristics will actually land them a publishing deal, go for it." The thing about the British class system is that you can't switch just like that. That's partly why everyone hates it. I have no idea how it works in America, but my initial suspicion would be that a writer's chances of being published have an awful lot to do with how much money they have. If I were to make a judgement based the recent American imports, I'd say that being a not-particularly-funny polemicist with a stupid face helps as well. As Bukharin's No. 1 fan says, making friends with people of influence in publishing is a massive part of being a successful writer. Making friends with people is much easier if they're the same kind of people as you, and if they live in the same city. Hence my characterisation. Incidentally, I'm about to move to London, I'm almost definitely middle class, and I know enough about wine to correct a barman's pronunciation of 'Chablis', but I doubt that's going to help me when I'm still mostly incapable, except on the odd occasion, of sucking up to people I don't like. But then - let's face it - that character flaw is going to get in the way of whatever it is I want to do.

"I am just an optimist who thinks the best of people." I know you're not proposing this as a rational creed, but I wonder, how do you explain to yourself all the awfulness that goes on? The fact that the planet is hellbound? Do you prefer not to think about it, or do you attribute it wholly to understandable mistakes? I sometimes wonder if it'd be better to always think the best of people. Personally, I offset always being ready to forgive or reassess with presuming that people are always capable of being scummy, given the wrong circumstances. Both approaches are infinitely superior to thinking that some people are basically good while the others are basically bad.

"I have no idea how it works in America, but my initial suspicion would be that a writer's chances of being published have an awful lot to do with how much money they have." I think you are correct...you have no idea how it works in America. You've got the cart before the horse. How much money they have is directly related to how much they are published. Writing as a profession is not fundamentally different from any other profession. If one intends to be a writer, one must possess the basic skills and intellect, be trained and then practice the craft. If they are lucky, they can land a job. If they are good, they can excel at that job. If they excel at their job, they can make a good salary. Most writers that make a good living aren't writing books, they work for newspapers or magazines. Most book writers I know do it as a second income, keeping their day jobs. I know hundreds of writers in the newspaper and magazine world. That is their day job. There is some truth to the thought that it's "who you know" vs. "what you know", but much of this is dependant upon having the skills to be noticed and then get to know those "who you know" people as you proceed. It's called "networking", and is used as a method of establishing professional contacts and possibly further ones career opportunities. It is not the sole domain of writers. It works for engineers, rocket scientists, plumbers and car thieves. If you get caught up in your image of what a "writer" is or isn't, or even worse, try to mimic that image, you're a pretender, not a writer. Consequently it is highly unlikely you’ll be a successful writer. Writers write. It doesn’t matter what they look like, it doesn’t matter where they live. It doesn't matter what type of wine they like. They don't have to live in London or New York. It doesn’t matter how much money they have. There are either good writers or bad writers.

I agree with pretty much everything Radiodenver says. Oh dear. I'm feeling a little faint... I think I ought to have a lie down.

Number of assumptions in your post. Firstly, you seem to be talking about 'writers' as in 'anyone who writes'. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about creative writers. People who principally write fiction or poetry. This pursuit follows a different set of rules to nearly all other careers, including those of your friends. If, as you say, their careers as fiction writers are secondary to their day jobs, then I have *not* got the cart before the horse - they needed the money before they could publish their books. If it truly didn't matter how much money you had, there would surely, by your logic, only be good writers. Bad writers would never be heard of. But that ain't the case. Writers do not simply write. If they did, no one would ever hear of them. They write, then they go out and show their work to people, they pursue publication, they, as you say, 'network'. And networking is not the natural, innocent process you imply it is. It means buttering people up, making yourself out to be something you're not (unless you really are a constantly witty, self-confidant, laid back geezer,) keeping in touch with them as long as they're useful to you, asking favours wherever possible, attending social gatherings just to add more names to the phonebooks. Some of us just don't like doing that. We prefer allowing friendships to develop naturally. Added to that is the fact that, as I say, it is simply more difficult if you don't live in the same city as the people you are trying to 'network' with (and in England, most of the publishing industry is based in London,) and if they aren't the kind of person you normally get on with. Cosy as it is to believe that all you ever have to worry about is being good at what you want to do, that's not how the world works. More realistic - perhaps more duplicitous - people recognise that there are patterns to success that can be mimicked, whether for an individual gain in status, or as part of a company's marketing strategy. Ambitious people are always looking for those shortcuts. Other people, like me, might hear about them, but rarely act on them. Not everything you hear is true, but I think you've got to be pretty thoroughly optimistic and, to an extent, naive, to go on believing that the only factor is how well you write. That said, I'm not denying that it's possible to be a good writer and get notice *without* networking. But I reiterate that I was talking about advantages, not guarantees.

Fuck my old boots, I pretty much agree with Jon. If you want to buy my book, visit my blog: http://whatisthisstrangeplace.blogspot.com/

sidestepping and deviating and being generally tangential SOME 'Bad writers' often write what an awful lot of people want to read and thus they are good writers in that they are good at writing what the public wants and I have to confess to liking reading some bad writing a bit like I like dancing to S Club 7 and I'd hardly call this deep meaningful and masterly composed music I know jack and anyone else isn't having a go at bad writers and I'm right off the trail of discussion but as an S club 7 appreciater and an all four Dan Brown novel reader I wanted to take this opportunity to stand up for the crap, the bad, the cheesy, the superficial and wish them every success and a big house in surrey complete with poodle in jacket jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

It's a tough world Jon. Being a successful writer is not an easy thing to do by any stretch of the imagination. You either understand the business (and it is a business), leveraging every asset you have, or you're on the outside looking in. Reminds me of the "rock star" disease. Buy a guitar, grow your hair, get a nipple ring, dye your hair blue, learn a few cords, form a band..."I'm a rock star now!" The world is littered with the failure of this ignorant approach. Now, if 12 year old girls think it's worth buying, you got it made. If you want to be critically successful, and even more to the point, commercially successful and sustainable to boot, you better know what you're doing and learn every angle as well as your craft, in great detail. It doesn't hurt in the least to have something interesting to say as well. I would remind you that Hemingway started as a reporter at a small newspaper, countless others for that matter. Stephen King started by publishing his own newspaper. To think that there is no method to becoming a successful writer other than as you describe would be to limit yourself to about .005 percent of all writing career possibilities. To criticise those that do work the machinery is naive. Great novelists and poets aren't hatched, they earn their way just like anybody else, through the machinery of their craft. Nobody ever whined their way to success.

"Nobody ever whined their way to success." Morrissey did. Thom Yorke did. Michael Moore did. Nearly every other political writer did. Weren't you just saying a moment ago that there are many other ways to become successful? And let's not also forget that the world is also littered with the success stories that have resulted from the 'rock star' approach you decry. Many of those kids who bought a guitar, grew their hair long, learned a few chords and formed a band went on to storm the charts. Many of those that didn't couldn't care less anyway - they did it because they wanted to, not because they expected it to fast-track them to success. Added to that is the fact that those who achieved success by this method are usually *so* much better loved, longer lasting and more respected that those that took the 'work the system' approach that you advocate - the pop bands that are formed by the likes of Simon Cowell on the basis of knowing what the public likes. I don't know exactly what point you were trying to make with that example, but it's fallen flat. You also seem to have changed your argument dramatically from 'good writing is all you need' to 'lever every asset that you have and play the system'. I don't mean to stir you up, but that seems to me an awful lot like you're twisting and turning in order to look like you're dispensing wisdom. Why, RD? What's so embarrassing about having a normal argument without trying to make it look as if the other person has got some problem that you've come along to fix? Why do you always have to be the 'expert'? You'll understand if I avoid your advice. I don't identify and criticise these systems, or patterns, because they're preventing me personally from being successful. I've already said that I'm awfully close to the wine-quaffing, middle-class Londoner I characterised earlier - I just need to quaff a little more wine, and make friends in publishing. However, I am criticisng the short-cut I think I have identified because it is fundamentally unfair. It's unfair, mostly, on people like Tom and Fergal, who do not feel comfortable hobnobbing and networking and sucking up and bigging themselves up to every person of influence they come across. Please don't give me some wise-old-man crap about how 'life is unfair'. I know it is, and I know there's not much you can do about it, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticise unfairness when I see it. And it's for that reason that I don't want to 'leverage every asset', however essential you now, in your radical about-turn, seem to think it is.

Does *reach for the stars* actions ... jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"Nobody ever whined their way to success." Ellen MacArthur, Paula Radcliffe, Martine McCutcheon, Michael Crawford... I think you'll find it's actually quite a common practice in Britain. On the writing issue, I think this: "You either understand the business (and it is a business), leveraging every asset you have, or you're on the outside looking in." ... is pretty much what Jon's saying. But in Britain, as has mentionned above, some people do have an in built advantage based on personal connections which are unrelated to their writing abilities. Others are good at spotting trends and being in the right place at the right time. I think that's a perfectly legitimate part of a writer's job and would seek to do this myself if I tried to write a novel to earn myself some money but it's not necessarily a great method for producing 'good writing'.

Jon's thesis on what is required to be a successful writer is basically to be a upper middle-class London wine quaffer or precocious talent. He basically goes on to deride anybody that uses their knowledge of the business to their professional advantage. All I'm pointing out is that view of reality is naive. Despite what you may wish to believe, the literary world does NOT revolve around London, nor Jon's perceptions of how it revolves around London's upper middle-class wine quaffers. I'm not trying to be the expert Jon. I have 25 years of experience in world wide publishing and I'm voiceing my opinion based on that experience. There are many far more experienced and knowledgabe people out there. There is nothing wrong with me doing so. Feel free to disagree. The people he claims that have "whined" their way to success, I would dispute as having actually whined their way to success. Michael Moore for example (god I hate to use him as an example, but he is successful), started as Journalist. He's a very smart businessman. He's able to convince people that he's important. I don't know what wine quaffing has to do with his success, but I suspect very little. The rock musician from Radio Head...who gives a shit...he's a rock musician and I doubt they'll be building statues of him or renaming streets after him. He's selling albums to 12 year old girls (I account for that reality in my theory). More power to him, I'm sure he's not lazy and without some talent. For every one of him, there are 20 million losers trying to be like him. I'd rather play the lottery, or better still, be an upper-middle class London wine quaffer. I say in disagreement to his theory, most writers are regular folks, working hard at perfecting their craft and despite the fact that there may be a meteoric appearance of some odd writer, most successful writers pay their dues and must possess some level of talent to be successful. I can think of no instance of a successful writer or poet that I know personally, who mimics and poses as an artist, Jon's glittering generality of personal traits of what he perceives to be the literary world. It simply ain't so.

I once saw Martin Amis at a tennis club, walking along with rackets under one arm, a pint in the other hand and a fag in his gob.

Oh and I fixed window locks to his brother's house. My God I've lived!

Oh, forgot, I saw Kingsley almost fall out of a cab shit-faced in Primrose Hill.

"Despite what you may wish to believe, the literary world does NOT revolve around London" The British literary scene does. "nor Jon's perceptions of how it revolves around London's upper middle-class wine quaffers." Well, in terms of creative writing - novels and poetry - in Britain, these are the people take most of the decisions about whether something is published or not. There are some significant figures in British publishing who don't live and work around London and aren't upper middle class but I think it's significantly less than half of them. Of course, this is true of quite a lot of industries in Britain. The difference is that - compared to noodle production or investment banking - publishing of poetry and novels (quite rightly, for the likes of us) typically involves lots of subjective non-commercial considerations. On that basis, people who are coming from the same world as the people taking the decisions have a hefty head start.

"Jon's thesis on what is required to be a successful writer is basically to be a upper middle-class London wine quaffer or precocious talent." But that's not what I said at all, is it? It's what you *wish* I'd said, because that's easier for you to argue against. "He basically goes on to deride anybody that uses their knowledge of the business to their professional advantage." But I don't, do I? That's what you *wish* I'd done, because it's easier for you to come back and say 'how naive'. I think it's quite plain from my posts that whilst I understand that we can't have an ideal world where everyone gets what they deserve, what I have a problem with is some people having a much easier time than others by merit of who they are. Again, maybe things work very differently in America, but the fact is that a person with an East London or Northern accent is likely going to have a much harder time 'networking' in publishing circles than someone with a North London accent. Those that live outside London are simply not going to get the opportunity, for the most part. Hobnobbing's hard over the phone, you see. Meanwhile, the people whose methods I would *actually* deride are those who utilise insincerity, duplicity and general worminess to get what they want. It happens, all the time, everywhere, and doesn't come under 'knowledge of the business', whichever way you slice it. There's a fine line between this kind of behaviour and building up contacts as a necessary part of getting yourself published, so I *would* be naive to think that this didn't go on. "most writers are regular folks" 'Regular' is very, very subjective. You seem to think you're pretty regular, but you aren't by my book. And most writers are certainly *not* what most would term 'regular folks' in Britain. They are very different to the 50% plus of the population that makes up the working class. Most people, including me, find that most of the writers they see on the telly or read about seem to live in a very different world. You can baulk at me focusing on 'famous writers', but I think you need to remind yourself once again that we're talking about professional novelists and poets, not anyone-who-writes-anything-as-part-of-their-job, and in their case success is almost always related to fame. Seems you've got a fair dollop of double-standards in your argument too. Rock bands who you've never heard of because they've failed to achieve world fame are 'losers', but writers who you know who I've never heard of are 'working hard at perfecting their craft'? Yeah right. This is just another rephrasing of your long-running assertion that you and your friends are all great, and young people are all stupid.

Quoting your own words Henny-doodle. I'm talking 'advantages' rather than 'guarantees'. If you're a writer, it is advantageous to be a wine-quaffing upper-middle class Londoner with friends in publishing. It is also advantageous to be a precocious talent, and have written a novel that you have every confidence in. But the greater advantage of the two, in my opinion, is the former. Which is to say, I believe a wine-quaffing upper-middle class Londoner with friends in publishing but no talent whatsoever has a better chance of being published than a talented writer who does not quaff wine, live in London or have friends in publishing. The foundation for this >belief the number of crap books published by crap authors whose biographies strongly suggest they are wine-quaffing upper-middle class Londoners. The 'friends in publishing' part is conjecture. If an author has both going for him (as may well be the case with this Malkani chap,) then he is getting very close to being guaranteed a future in writing. I should also add that these advantages are nowhere near enough if the writer in question also lacks a degree of arrogance, ambition and commitment. And when I say 'friends in publishing', I'm thinking of friends with a degree of influence. Just to be thorough. And we have... Hen>>"But that's not what I said at all, is it?" Not to mention... I am criticizing the short-cut I think I have identified because it is fundamentally unfair. It's unfair, mostly, on people like Tom and Fergal, who do not feel comfortable hobnobbing and networking and sucking up and bigging themselves up to every person of influence they come across. >Please don't give me some wise-old-man crap about how 'life is unfair'. I know it is, and I know >there's not much you can do about it, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticise unfairness when I see it. Hen quoting RD)-"He basically goes on to deride anybody that uses their knowledge of the business to their professional advantage." Hen replies... "But I don't, do I? That's what you *wish* I'd done, because it's easier for you to come back and say 'how naive'." Radio retorts...So, anybody smarter than you and capable of using their smarts to their own advantage is unfair? Survival of the fittest there young furball, survival of the fittest. Fairness never enters the equation...Actually, any potential competition for your spot on the wine quaffing list would be quite pleased to find they are competing with a half wit. Think about that one the next time you're licking your wounds over life being unfair. ****** Well, lemme see here Hen-puppy. I'm not wishing anything. Well not true, I do wish I had another camera...but that's irrelevant. I think I summarized your argument fairly accurately; however, I must admit you don't really make much sense short of sounding like a serious whiner with no experience dealing with the realities of life. Can you hear the violins? They are playing a sad song for your laments of unfairness. I won't rehash my point (thank god), it's already been made. I would add that I haven't resorted to personal insults towards you. I'll save those for later. Now is later. I'm quite pleased to have yanked your chain again sir. It's so easy, I almost feel guilty.

I'm not sure I'm following this argument: JC: the publishing industry is unfair RD: you're wrong, the publishing industry is unfair is that about the gist of it?

Yes, Maddan. That's about the gist of it. RD is arguing against me not because he disagrees with my argument (he did at first, but then he changed his mind,) but because he wants to put me down. Again. RD- Luvaduck. There's no need to requote what I said. I know I said that, and I know - as does anyone who engages their brain - that there's a major difference between an advantage and a requirement. I have never said that you *have* to be a certain kind of person, only that a certain kind of person has the edge. And where exactly have I complained that people are smarter than me? Please don't pull the trick, as you just have, of quoting me saying something completely different and saying, 'There.' Or are you also unable to tell the difference between intelligence and duplicity? And didn't I say no 'life is unfair' crap? Is it some kind of disease you have, like Tourettes syndrome, whereby you can't actually communicate with someone without dispensing redundant advice in a contemptuous manner? You are utterly determined, to the point where you're not only shifting and changing your own argument, but radically altering mine as well, to prove some kind of superior position. You aren't going to achieve this as long as your arguments essentially boil down to insulting and goading me. You have so much evident contempt for younger people, but you're not even grown up yourself.

i've been thinking a lot about this thread for the last couple of days (the original question posed). My first reaction was denial then guilt, i've been trying to ignore the impact of my renewed writing obsession, just gotta keep them plates spinning. But actually it is my family who are making sacrifices. I am often absent though physically present, my kids get less of me, my house is a lot messier, my cooking's gone downhill (never great in first place), my husband is tired of saying 'are you listening to me', my friends have to drag me away from my laptop and my dog misses his cuddles. But i just can't stop. On the upside my husband can watch as much football as he wants, the kids get away with blue murder and i am so much happier. Juliet

'Fuck my old boots, I pretty much agree with Jon.' Tom Saunders, you are a legend! I nearly spat my coffee all over my computer. Thanks for making me laugh on such a dreary Saturday. Byrne xx

Hen...Jon...Jack... You still don't get it. I'm just killing time at your expense. I don't give a fuck about any of this...chill out boy. Hey, can you find me a case of elbow grease?

Well, could you possibly kill time by not being so annoying, or is it just too much fun?

I want the last word.

http://www.freewebs.com/michaeljamestreacy/index.htm *sneaking in after MistyCityGeorge in order to get the last word* I want one of those 'Henny-doodle' thingys. Every aspiring writer should have one of those 'Henny-doodle' thingys. *sneaks off in hysterics at the poetic image of a highly respected Tom Saunders copulating with his old boots*