Posted in Non-Fictions on October 31, 2010 by Tom Fletcher

We were in Buxton yesterday and we went to the Pavilion Gardens. There was an indoor section, with a pleasantly warm, humid room full of glossy, dark-leaved plants. There was a very clean-looking pond as well, full of bright fish. I leaned over the edge and watched them for a while. There was one white fish with very big, protuberant eyes. It swam close to the wall. It swam closer and closer to the wall. If it went right up to the wall, the first bit of it to touch the wall would be its eye, because its eyes were so very bulbous. I kept thinking, don’t get so close to the wall. Then it bumped into the wall, eye first. I thought it would recoil or something, but it didn’t. Just kept on scraping along.


Posted in Non-Fictions on October 28, 2010 by Tom Fletcher

Obviously the website has been receiving a bit of media attention recently, and – quite predictably – has been criticized as sick, insensitive, and tasteless. The primary line of attack seems to be ‘Even though loads of people hate her and think she’s a terrible person, she’s still somebody’s mother and somebody’s nan. She’s still a real human being, and she’s old and frail.’

This line of attack is often accompanied by the attacker saying that they themselves admire Thatcher, and that she saved the country, and that she’s a national hero.

I’m not going to defend on grounds of taste or sensitivity, because what constitutes bad taste or tastelessness is so subjective as to make any protest on such grounds quite meaningless. And I’m not going to talk about her politics. But what I will say is that for people to get so self-righteous about others being seemingly callous about the death of an individual is laughably hypocritical.

What I mean is – people resent their taxes funding the safe accommodation of asylum seekers. People are quite happy for their taxes to be spent on an illegal war in which (it is believed) more civilians than military have died. People bemoan the amount of foreign aid that we, as a nation, give to other countries in the wake of natural disasters. People (specifically, Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail) loudly opine that it’s no great loss if prostitutes are murdered by a serial killer, or that Tony Martin had every right to shoot that thieving youth in the back. And on and on and on. Basically, lots of people couldn’t care less about the deaths of others. Their second car is more important. Lots of people, to be blunt, don’t mind hastening the deaths of others if it means paying less tax. Even innocent others.

How can these people sincerely claim that is somehow wrong by virtue of speculating on / waiting for the death of a person? In every case mentioned above, we’re talking about the deaths of human beings – mothers, fathers, nans, sons, daughters, wives, husbands. But that doesn’t really bother Littlejohn et al, or their multitudinous parrots.

In short – the ‘BUT SHE’S A HUMAN BEING AND SHE MIGHT ACTUALLY DIE!’ reaction to is disingenuous and ludicrous, and it’s primarily coming from the very same idiot media organs that are responsible for so many people in this country holding the repulsive and deeply callous views listed above. Basically, they care about some people dying, and not others. It would be interesting to know where the dividing lines are.


Posted in Uncategorized on October 26, 2010 by Tom Fletcher

Wrote a long, despondent blog post about how despondent I feel about British politics (Lib Dems, tabloids, torture etc) and have saved it to drafts. Seems too despondent. It was too despondent. It was totally hopeless.


Posted in Non-Fictions on October 25, 2010 by Tom Fletcher

On Friday 29th October, I – together with some other horror writers – am doing this:

It seems like a good way to celebrate Halloween and everything, I think. So come along.

Speaking of celebrating Halloween – you’re probably racking your brains regarding Halloween presents for your friends / family / loved ones. Halloween presents, right? Everybody loves Halloween presents*.

How about a book of ghost stories?

This is a book of ghost stories (it’s called ‘The Obverse Book of Ghosts’) and it’s an anthology featuring work by many different writers, including me. More information here, and you can pre-order it here or here. (That last link is to Amazon, where you can see a slightly different, brighter cover). It’s out on 31st October. Halloween. So logically you should buy it, I think. If that’s not logical I don’t know what is.

Yes this is a total plug post. Sorry.


*I made ‘Halloween presents’ up. I’ve never really heard of them. I don’t think they exist.

A Haunting of Nightjars

Posted in Non-Fictions on September 23, 2010 by Tom Fletcher

Running out of time (I am not alone in this, I know) so this is copied word-for-word from the notification e-mail that I just received:

Next Wednesday’s event – A Haunting of Nightjars – in the Didsbury Arts Festival will feature dark & disturbing readings from Conrad Williams, Claire Massey, Stephen McGeagh, Tom Fletcher, Graeme Shimmin, Socrates Adams-Florou and Terri Lucas.

I will be introducing the readers and may even sneak in a bit of my own stuff.

Nightjar Press chapbooks will be on sale. Maybe other books, too. You never know. No rubbish, though. No tat.

7-9pm, Northern Lawn Tennis Club, Palatine Road, West Didsbury.

FREE. (There’s a bar, too, but that’s not free.)

The mysterious ‘I’ is Mr Nicholas Royle.

This’ll be good – please come along.


Posted in Non-Fictions on September 23, 2010 by Tom Fletcher

It was FantasyCon over the weekend. FantasyCon was really great. It was the second one I’ve been to. Although I found it a bit outfacing to start with, once you get into it and start talking to people it opens up into a very rich, receptive and friendly kind of party.  Congratulations and well done and thank you to all involved in the organising. And congratulations to all of the award winners!

I went to several panels over the weekend, but the one that prompted this post was the one set up to discuss escapism in genre fiction. The panel chair (the fantasy author Juliet E McKenna) opened proceedings with the suggestion that escapist fiction is often met with sneers and generally held in low regard, and went on to posit that this was a sad and miserable thing. McKenna seemed to be saying, in short, that there is nothing wrong with escapism.

Now the world is often relentlessly foul, as we all know. Life can be sad and ugly and pathetic and tedious etc. (Much like this blog). This point was made by an audience member, who asserted that genre fiction should be proud of its escapist qualities, that we should (I guess) re-appropriate the word and emphasise its positive meanings and connotations, given the nasty, brutish and short nature of real life. The panel members seemed to agree.

This is when I had to start biting my tongue. I mean, I could have contributed to the discussion myself, but, frankly, it would have felt too confrontational and too much like I was attacking the audience member that had spoken. She was obviously a very intelligent and thoughtful woman and I’m sure in one major sense we are in agreement – i.e. there is nothing wrong with escapism, in theory – but in another sense… well.

For one thing, any kind / genre of book has the potential to be escapist. (A point made by panel member Chaz Brenchley). Fantasy / Speculative Fiction (SFF) does not have the monopoly. Books marketed as literary fiction can be escapist. Books in the author ‘A-Z’ section, I mean. For another thing, although the term ‘escapist’ is often used pejoratively in relation to SFF, we all know that it’s ignorant to define SFF as escapist at all. Sure, it can be, as can any other work of fiction, but… Nineteen Eighty-Four – SFF, yes, but escapist? Not really. Let The Right One In – definitely SFF, and, again, definitely not escapist. Frankenstein. The list goes on. The Sandman Chronicles. Etc etc etc etc. Even when there are comfortable, escapist elements, there are serious, relevant things going on as well. (See a post from fellow Quercus author Rod Rees on this here).

And there it is, really. I set ‘comfortable, escapist elements’ up in opposition to ‘serious, relevant things’ just in the sentence before last, without even thinking about it. Because although there is nothing intrinsically wrong with pure escapism, it is inherently a way of ignoring life, surely? I mean – what else can it be? It is escape. It is closing yourself off from those experiences that you don’t want to think about. Even more extremely, it is closing yourself off from your world. Wouldn’t it be better for a book to actually explore and illuminate the fantastic in life, or cast the mundane in an extraordinary light (i.e. change your life/the world a little bit by being relevant to it/discussing it) than just enable you to ignore it for a while? It’s perfectly possible for SFF to do this as well as any other kind of fiction.

We can’t on one hand be proud to be escapist and then on the other complain that we’re not taken seriously by the literary community. Personally, I think all genres should be regarded equally, but to me that requires SFF (as an entity) to drop the whole ‘escapism is great’ thing. There’s nothing wrong with escapism, but it is the opposite of cultural involvement. Chest-beatingly, flag-wavingly escapist fiction will only result in the further derision of the whole SFF scene.

Abandoned Quarries / Flooded River / Ruined House

Posted in Non-Fictions on September 10, 2010 by Tom Fletcher