Monday 30 December 2013

Bill Bryson on selfishness and the burden of writing

By Zoe Hazel Thomas

A few weeks ago I met, as unimaginative as the phrase is, one of my ‘literary heroes’. 

He’s an author whose books I’ve dipped into since Down Under joined our family’s selection of toilet entertainment about a decade ago, alongside The Best of Private Eye 1989 and a few Gary Larson cartoons. 

Of course, as a teenager primarily concerned with boys and alcohol, it didn’t occur to me at the time that everybody else knew about Bill Bryson too. To me he was just a hairy man bumbling around Australia, who only really existed every so often in the tiled confines of my parents’ upstairs bathroom. It wasn’t until I grew older and more of his books appeared in the cupboard, that I started to realise just how brilliant a writer this hairy man was. He had, and of course still has, a rare talent that many clever people lack: the ability to make complex (and, it has to be said, potentially dull) information digestible and entertaining. I may have doodled and daydreamed my way through science lessons at school, but when Bill Bryson explained atoms, electrons and quarks in The Short History of Nearly Everything, I was not only gripped, but sometimes laughing out loud. It was a strange feeling then, to find myself sitting at the Dean’s Place Hotel in Alfriston a few weeks ago, looking right at the man I’d spent so much time reading about. Up to that point, he had just been a character from a book. Now here he was, standing right in front of me, actually giving me advice.


“First of all, thank you very much for coming. It’s really very flattering to me and it’s something that always means a lot,” Bill Bryson said, his Iowa twang still noticeable after 40 years of living in Britain. As much as I would like to say he was addressing me personally, I was in fact sitting in an audience of about 80 others, at an hour-long talk organised by the local bookshop Much Ado Books. He was there to promote his latest book, One Summer: America 1927 but, true Bryson-style, he ended up discussing all kinds of things, including his relationship with travelling, writing, England and his family, who we soon discovered were sitting with us in the audience.


Bryson waiting to begin his talk at Dean's Head Hotel,
Alfriston
“I feel a bit uneasy here for a number of reasons,” Bryson began once the welcoming applause had petered out. “Not least because my two children are here and so if I screw up they’ll never let me forget it. Most places I go, if I do screw up then I can just leave and I don’t see the people ever again. These are people I have to live the rest of my life with.”


Before inviting us to ask our own questions, Bryson spoke about his background in journalism, travel writing, and of course his new book. He first found fame as a travel writer in the late ‘80s, after he published The Lost Continent: Travels in Small-Town America, but, despite his obvious successes, he never intended it to be that way. 

“For a first book it attracted quite a lot of attention," he said. "And for that reason my publishers said ‘ok, that’s what you do now, you do travel books.’ But that was not my intention. I enjoyed doing it I didn’t resist the idea, but after I’d done a dozen or so travel books, there came a point when I decided that I can’t write any more jokes about food I don’t like, or just being confused and muddled. And I was running out of countries to sort of, take the piss out of.”  


One of the reasons I’ve always enjoyed Bryson’s books, even as a teenager, is that despite the long and often detailed passages about certain points in history, or things that I’m not particularly interested in (like baseball), the stories themselves are told so well, and they are so pleasantly peppered with funny bits that I just can’t skip over them. In trying to write my own comic passages, I often despair at how easy it seems to come to other writers. How effortlessly they build a story and deliver a punchline by using the right words at the right pace, at just the right tone. Bryson is highly accomplished at doing this, but he was quick to admit to us (much to my delight) that humour doesn’t always flow as well for him as it seems.


“It’s a challenge to write comic passages and it’s an interesting challenge,” he told us. “What’s hard about writing humorously is that when you’re writing you don’t know how the reader is going to respond to it, and you can agonise over punchlines, trying to get the passage exactly right but you have no idea how it’s going to be received. Still, it’s something I enjoy immensely even though it drives me crazy doing it.”



The ‘agonising’ Bryson mentioned is something most writers know all too well, and not just in terms of comedy. Famous writers, including F Scott Fitzgerald and Sylvia Plath, have spiralled into depression and alcoholism with bouts of writer’s block. The problem with being an avid reader as well as a writer, is that it opens your eyes to all the superb talent out there, and it drives home just how much competition there is to contend with. It’s like a chef doing a tour of all the Michelin starred restaurants in the world and then coming back to his little cafe in a side-alley in Chiswick  is it inspiring to encounter the best, or is it just depressing? I put this thought to Bryson when he opened the floor to questions (after a fair amount of frantic arm waving - mine, not his).


“Somebody gave me a great deal of comfort when I was an aspiring writer myself,” he told me, while I tried to process the incredible fact that I was talking to Bill Bryson. “Go into any bookshop and look at all of the titles. Hundreds and hundreds of titles. Thousands of titles. They’re all written by people who first of all nobody had heard of. And then just look at the books. I don’t know how good a writer you are or not, but I can tell you that you’re a lot better than a lot of people who get published. There’s a lot of bad writing out there. You cannot be so bad that you would be as bad as Jeffrey Archer. There’s room for all of us. Publishing is an amazingly vast and sprawling thing. So don’t give up, and don’t worry that people won’t read you because one day they very well may.”


Before he moved on there was something else I wanted to know. While reading his travel books, I’d always wondered how the writing process itself changed the way he viewed or enjoyed a place. I imagined he would always have to be taking notes at every museum he found, every local he spoke to. On the few occasions that I have travelled alone, I’ve spent a great deal of that time writing  in cafes, in restaurants, on train journeys. For me it’s an enjoyable experience that helps to consolidate my thoughts. For Bryson, however, writing is more of a burden. “What I really enjoy, just for pleasure,” he said, “Is going with my wife and kids and not having the burden of having to write about it – not having to take notes or think about it. Travelling to gather material is not all that fun. Travelling with my wife and kids is.”

Previously in the talk, he’d told us that he conducts his research alone. This, he said, is “the most fun part of the book”. The writing itself is “just hard and it’s not fun. It’s just a job I have to get through.” He mentioned this lack of enjoyment again in answer to my question: “When I’m writing, I need to be doing it on my own. It’s not an experience that I can enjoyably share with my wife and kids or anything like that. There have been times that they’ve come along with me that aren’t necessarily recorded in the book. But by and large it has to be a selfish experience.” When he goes out for a walk, he needs to be free to make his own decisions
whether to go left at a T-junction, or right. He compared travelling around with others to being in a “cocoon, a little bubble that becomes your culture, your personal life that you’re just moving around a different place with”.


At the signing after the talk, Bryson graciously shook hands with and spoke to just about every audience member there. It was clear to see he wasn’t just there to sell books: he was there because now, after months of researching and writing in isolation, he could finally come to meet the people who enjoy his work. When it was my turn, he thanked me for my question and asked a little about my writing. He told me again not to worry, just to persevere because, despite his OBE, his awards, his honourary degrees and his global success, he still knows exactly how it feels to want to throw your laptop out of the window, lock yourself in a cupboard and never write another word. 

It’s a burden a lot of writers carry, but we have to carry it with pride, if only for the small chance that one day, somebody might want to read what we have written.

Sunday 13 October 2013

Where would we be without Page 3?

MPs, celebrities and feminist campaigners say ‘No More Page 3’ – but apart from making a few blokes feel a bit miffed, just what will a ban on topless models in The Sun achieve? Zoe Thomas investigates.

In the winter of 1970, news got sexy. It had been a tough year full of black-outs, public sector strikes and rising costs. People needed a good reason to spend hard-earned cash on newspapers full of doom and gloom. Larry Lamb, then-editor of The Sun newspaper, had an idea up his sleeve. How do you get the hard-up public to buy something? Simple: naked flesh.

Bikini-clad women had been a staple of the paper since its re-launch the previous year, but Lamb decided it was time to step things up a notch. The first topless model to go to print was German bombshell Stephanie Rahn, in what the paper called ‘her birthday suit’. Some called it degrading, others called it cheap – but for Rupert Murdoch and the gang, Page Three was pure gold. Within one year of making bare breasts a regular feature, The Sun’s circulation figures grew by a hefty 40% to 2.1 million.

First Page Three girl Stephanie Rahn
The public’s desire for nudity in the news hasn’t waned a bit over the last four decades, despite rising pressures from feminists. In 1986 MP Clare Short, or ‘Killjoy Clare’ (The Sun’s words, not mine) tried to introduce a House of Commons Bill banning topless models from national newspapers, clearly to no effect. In this year’s National Readership Survey, the infamous redtop was found to have more readers than any other newspaper, at 17.8 million a year. It beat The Times by more than 12 million readers, The Guardian by 8.9 million and The Daily Mail by 1.3 million.  

Despite the paper’s popularity, Ms Short was not the only person to take offence to what she believed was the sexual objectification of women. Today the campaign is heating up again and this time there’s a significant following. A few weeks ago I found myself at the heart of the debate when I went to see ‘No More Page Three’ campaigner Lucy Anne Holmes speak at The Brighton Dome’s Feminism 3.0, part of the Brighton Digital Festival.

Lucy Anne Holmes
“It’s time to speak for those who feel disempowered by a newspaper that feels the most important thing about women is how sexy men find them in their pants when they’re about 20,” she told the audience. “I noticed The Sun was full of photographs of men in suits doing important things, while the biggest picture of a woman was Emily from Warrington in her knickers.”

The former actress and author's argument has clearly resonated with a lot of people; it’s already gained an impressive following of celebrities, teaching unions, feminists and even 143 cross-party MPs. So far, almost 120,000 people have signed the e-petition, which asks Sun editor David Dinsmore to: “Stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects.”

Katie Price AKA Jordan
One big-name signatory is Glamour Magazine – which is, incidentally, currently running a feature called ‘Sexiest Man 2013’ where readers are asked to rate the physical attractiveness of male celebrities. I can’t help but feel that this is a bit hypocritical, given that the campaign it supports says: “In a society where so many women a day are sexually assaulted, perpetuating a belief that women are there for men’s sexual pleasure doesn’t seem right.” If the Page Three ban were to go ahead on the grounds that objectifying women is wrong, should competitions like these be banned too?

I also couldn’t help but wonder how the models themselves would feel about Ms Holmes’ desire to ‘speak up for them’. Page Three models can earn up to £100,000 a year with potential to amass multi-million pound fortunes if they’re business minded like former Page Three girl Katie Price. Many of these women have assets, confidence and money. What’s disempowering about that?

Kate Moss
In a recent Guardian interview, former Page Three model Hannah Pool said: If a man is going to see a woman as a piece of meat, they are going to anyway. It's the way people perceive the industry. I've always been comfortable with taking my clothes off. I don't see why it's different when Kate Moss gets her top off. It's just that I have big boobs, so it's a different image.”

This is an interesting point: would Page Three be acceptable if the images were more ‘artsy’ and technically interesting? Keen to explore this argument further, I arranged a brief interview with an artist and former life drawing model from Surrey to see what she thought about the potential ban.
I think give people what they want. But then again you don't get a Page Three full of naked men, not that I know of anyway,” the 26-year-old said.

When I asked how she felt posing naked in front of an audience, she said:
“I felt scared at first but I did feel it was just for art’s sake, I guess the fact that both women and men were drawing me made it easier too. I definitely felt sort of empowered and a sense of freedom as well, because you kind of have to shift your way of thinking. It’s kind of weird to explain. A lot of people actually thanked me after saying they loved drawing me. I was a bit curvier back then.”

Stock image
She went on to explain how audience and context made a big difference. In life drawing, the model is appreciated for his or her aesthetics – the quality of light, the contours and the scope for experimentation. Is Page Three art? I’ll save that question for another article, but in the words of Larry Lamb himself, it may offer: “An image of beauty in a world where there is much unpleasantness.” In terms of who’s seeing the images, The Sun actually boasts an impressive female readership, with 43.6% at the most recent count (unless they’re all feminists buying it to burn it).

I’ve heard a lot from the campaigners, but I also wanted to know what fans of The Sun thought. Matt, a 27-year-old police officer and body builder from Sussex said: “Personally I like to keep fit and healthy and can see how being confident in your own body can make you feel happy as a whole. Page Three models look proud and happy with their appearance. It would seem more wrong to take it away from them. For me it’s no different to the body building magazines.”

Phillip, from West Wales, said: “A discrete ogle makes for a perfect start to the morning. May the institution never end. It’s part of British culture like top shelf mags!”

Swindon-based physiotherapist Emma, 28, said: “I say keep Page Three, but only size 12+ models. None of these skinny barely there lasses. Wouldn’t last a winter.”

This in itself opens up another debate. As a number of critics have already asked, what about the unattainably skinny figures of the models in women’s magazines? Surely they foster more body insecurities than the curvier women featured in The Sun?

Susan from London said: “Much as I despise The Sun, I don't think taking Page Three out of it would change things. Time and effort would be better spent addressing the seriously sick ideas portrayed in other media.”

No More Page Three Campaigner
Earlier this year Rupert Murdoch Tweeted that he might replace the controversial page with “A halfway house of glamorous fashionistas,” i.e. models in clothes. Now I don’t know about you, but I’m far less offended by ‘Emily from Warrington’ in her knickers than ‘glamorous fashionistas’ parading around in outfits I can’t afford, joining the overflow of media messages saying a woman’s worth is in what she buys.


While I do believe that Lucy Holmes is admirable for starting such a prolific campaign, I also think it’s a shame she’s chosen Page Three to target. Sex appeal isn’t the antithesis of intelligence, and The Sun, whilst popular, isn’t exactly reliable (it was recently voted the least trusted newspaper in the UK). People enjoy it for its puns, its gaudiness, its lack of political correctness and its 40p price tag. The writing is accessible, emotive and sensationalised. Nobody in history ever bought it for a sensible view of current affairs. So shouldn’t Page Three be viewed in the same light? Is it not a bit of fun, like a Chippendale show on a hen night? 

I wonder what he's thinking?
Sexual objectification is not a sexist issue: it’s human nature. When pictures of actor Joe Manganiello emerging from the sea (all arms and abs) were published, I don’t think anyone was fantasising about his views on the population crisis. Women don’t read Glamour Magazine to vote on the ‘Kindest man of 2013’ award and I’m willing to bet not all women who tune in to watch Toby Buckland on Gardener’s World are in it for the potting tips. Both sexes have a propensity to objectify, and it’s certainly not just a ‘man thing’. I’m worried that ‘No More Page Three’ could open up a debate that’s bigger than Emily from Warrington's bare breasts. 

If Page Three gets banned, what’s next?