Friday, May 7, 2010
Alan Sillitoe: His own man
Alan Sillitoe was one of the stars of the Angry Young Men, but resisted classification throughout his prolific career. With his death last week, a strand of late 20th-century literature has come to an end.
Like many a writer who elbowed his way into public notice in the 1950s, Alan Sillitoe will probably be remembered for only a tiny fraction of his considerable output. Just as Kingsley Amis's reputation, one suspects, will ultimately stand or fall on Lucky Jim (1954), so posterity will almost certainly end up judging Sillitoe's long and combative career on the basis of its two opening salvoes – the novel Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1958) and the high-octane short story collection The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner (1959). The fault is not Sillitoe's, who wrote at least half a dozen novels ripe to be compared with his groundbreaking debut. Rather, it lies in the nature of the literary stage – a stage where TS Eliot featured as a grand panjandrum and Iris Murdoch as a promising ingénue – on which he took his bow.
The 1950s, lest we forget, was an age of literary sensation, a time when books were "news" and yet – as nearly always happens when books are news – the newsworthiness had very little to do with the literature itself. It was the era of the Angry Young Man (Osborne, Amis, Wain), of more or less radical literary politicking (see Declaration, the 1957 collection of art manifestos edited by the young Tom Maschler), of that notoriously problematic entity "the working-class writer", of aesthetic compacts forged between novelists and grittily realist film-makers, of a fascination – at any rate at its upper level – with the fast-dissolving popular culture described in Richard Hoggart's The Uses of Literacy (1957).
Sillitoe operated on the inner flank of each of these movements – he was as angry, if not angrier, than John Osborne; his first two books were filmed, respectively, by Karel Reisz and Tony Richardson; the pre-war Nottingham backyards he wrote about bear natural resemblances to Richard Hoggart's Hunslet – while always remaining, sometimes to the point of defiance, his own man. On the other hand, while his starring role in the new literary vanguard brought substantial rewards – Saturday Night was one of the first million-selling Pan paperbacks – his originality wasn't always noticed by the critics, and the pigeonholing that characterised the early part of his career often got in the way of later attempts to extend his range.
Nowhere was this typecasting more flagrant than in Sillitoe's instant classification as a "working-class writer". Metropolitan journalists, summoned to pronounce on the new wave of northern novelists, many of them from comparatively humble backgrounds, tended to assume not only that they themselves were socially homogenous, but that their books reflected the same kind of backgrounds, anxieties and outlooks on life. In fact, there are at least half a dozen varieties of the 50s working-class, including the aspirational "lace-curtain working class" (Stan Barstow's phrase) rising from foundry or production line to the solicitor's office or the draughtsman's shop; the provincial bohemians of Philip Callow's Lawrence-inflected Common People (1958); the thrusting meritocrats of John Braine's Room at the Top (1957).
As for the working-class novelist, broadly speaking the paladins of the 50s northern horde belonged to a distinctive social sub-group: first-generation grammar school boys, respectful of their origins but keen to explore the world beyond the horizon. One of the most characteristic scenes in an English novel written during the period 1954-64 is the spectacle of its hero standing proudly on the station platform as he waits for the next train to London.
Set against this upwardly mobile, meritocratic tide, Sillitoe was the outsider to end all outsiders, dyed-in-the-wool Midlands underclass, large parts of whose childhood were spent pushing a handcart containing his family's possessions from one set of flyblown digs to another, whose earliest memories were of his mother yelling "Not on his head" as his illiterate father set about him with his fists, educated not at a grammar school but a secondary modern which disgorged its alumni at 14 to the Raleigh bicycle factory. Ted Hughes (with whom Sillitoe was friendly) once wrote in a letter to Christopher Reid that among the newcomers of the "Angry Decade", he "had the best barbarian credentials, except for maybe Alan Sillitoe".
All this gave Arthur Seaton, the moody, antinomian hero of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, a distinctive status among the fictional protagonists of the Macmillan era. Unlike the "good" working-class characters of an earlier age, Arthur is an ambiguous figure: generous (when he has the money), affectionate towards women and incubating warm feelings towards the male friend he is quietly cuckolding, but untroubled by the moral implications of detaching a drunk from his wallet or plugging an air-rifle pellet into the cheek of a muck-raking neighbour.
The same ambiguity extends to the milieu in which Sillitoe frames him – the close, tightly knit badlands of back-street Nottingham, with its simmering resentments and neighbourhood quarrels that are always liable to end up in a mass brawl and a night in the cells. If nothing else, Saturday Night is a terrific antidote to the sentimentalising of working-class life, with its roaring fires and benignly shirt-sleeved patresfamilias, promoted by Orwell and the eternal decencies of the proletarian hearth observed by Hoggart. The Uses of Literacy, for example, insists that pre-war Hunslet offered "a good and comely life", characterised by its "sacrifice, cooperation and neighbourliness". Sillitoe thought differently. The Seatons either desert from military service or feign bad eyesight to get out of it, and sit through Churchill's patriotic radio broadcasts with stoical indifference. There is a solidarity about them, but it is the solidarity of a rebel army, born not out of any generosity of spirit but from hate and fear.
To the middle-class critic – and the middle-class reader – Arthur's surly self-centredness was a problem. Joe Lampton, the go-getting arriviste of Braine's Room at the Top, may not have been a particularly pleasant character, but at least he had ambition. Sillitoe's early work, it soon became clear, was about getting by and staying put, fighting against drift, bringing a compound of highly combustible inner resources to bear on the horrors of routine, taking refuge in daydreams: living till 90, as Arthur puts it, with a fresh piece of skirt every day. His "vitality" was his saving grace, but even this could sometimes seem horribly compromised. In John Fowles's first novel, The Collector (1964), in which a jackpot-winning municipal clerk kidnaps an art student and keeps her prisoner in his cellar, Arthur features as a talismanic symbol of the contemporary class war. Left-leaning, CND-fancying Miranda ought theoretically to sympathise with this signifier of oppression and neglect. On the contrary, she detests him. "I think Saturday Night and Sunday Morning is disgusting," she declares. "I think Arthur Seaton is disgusting, and I think the most disgusting thing of all is that Alan Sillitoe doesn't show that he is disgusted by his young man."
To Miranda, Arthur's most blatant offence is his solipsism – "he doesn't care about anything outside his own little life". Worse, "because he is cheeky, hates his work and is successful with women, he is supposed to be vital". If one of the era's critical orthodoxies was that a writer ought not to keep his moral cards quite so close to his chest, then another was that the chief merit of Sillitoe's early books lay in their documentary quality. At their heart, it was assumed, lurked a conventional social realism that was the literary equivalent of cinéma-vérité. All this is profoundly to underestimate the degree of sophistication that Sillitoe brought to his work and his determination to go beyond dramatised sociology into a world where the novelist of "ordinary life" had rarely set foot.
"The Match", for example, perhaps the finest of the stories in The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner, is usually read as a straightforward piece of reportage, in which an embittered middle-aged man stamps home from a football game his side have lost, takes his disappointment out on his long-suffering wife and picks a quarrel that will end his marriage. Its abiding feature, though, is less its "realism" – although there is plenty of that – than the stealthiness of its psychology, the ominous prefigurations, a well-nigh determinist sense of individual destiny hanging in the air, and at the end a rather chilling attempt to weave Lennox's fate into a wider pattern of ordinary lives ruined by bad temper and a failure to communicate. British readers admired "The Match", (mostly) assuming that it was another utensil from the late 50s kitchen sink. Sillitoe's French translators, on the other hand, marked him down as the heir to Camus.
In a memorable Desert Island Discs interview recorded a year or so ago, Sillitoe advanced the modest claim that all he had ever really wanted to do was to achieve enough success to enable him to, as he put it, "plod away", writing a book a year and pleasing himself. This is exactly what he contrived to do: the bibliography of his post-1960s output runs to more than 60 items, including poetry, a shrewd and revealing autobiography (Life Without Armour, 1995) and the recent cold war travelogue, Gadfly in Russia. The novels of his maturity are a mixed bunch, differing wildly in subject-matter and approach and often bewildering fans of his early work. To his biographer Richard Bradford this is evidence of a wholesale dereliction of critical duty, in which reviewers who had misunderstood his first books either underrated his achievement or simply failed to comprehend what he was trying to do.
Certainly a trawl through some of his later fiction tends to support this view. A Start in Life (1970) retains some of the old Nottingham background while soon developing into a picaresque (Sillitoe maintained that his mentors were the Spanish novelists Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Mateo Alemán and Francisco de Quevedo). It takes its hero, Michael Cullen, from the Midlands to a hustler's life in Soho and concludes, amid a hail of bullets, as a skit on the idea of the existential hero. The Broken Chariot (1998), is another kind of skit, in which Sillitoe cunningly inverts the trajectory of his own early career, has an upper-class boy named Thurgarton-Strang break out of his West Country boarding-school and re-invent himself as the Seatonesque "Bert Gedling", a boozy tail-chaser employed by the Nottingham Royal Ordnance factory and aspiring proletarian writer. Neither novel achieved the success it deserved.
Sillitoe was phlegmatic about this neglect, an attitude he brought to most aspects of his long and industrious career. He fitted into no niche, peddled no theories about the nature of his craft ("One either judges, or one writes, and I only care to do the latter," he tersely informed a magazine symposium in 1978), succumbed to perilously few of the blandishments on offer to the successful modern practitioner (creative writing professorships, newspaper columns), and it is difficult not to believe that, with his death, a particular strand of late 20th-century English literature has ceased to exist.
In the 50 and a bit years since Saturday Night and Sunday Morning crash-landed on the weekend books pages, there have been plenty of novelists capable of seeing working-class life from the inside, but none of them was forged in quite the same kind of crucible as Sillitoe. Above all, there is the terrific air of individuation and quiddity brought to a part of the demographic that, with a few honourable exceptions, the pre-1950s novel had routinely ignored. "We all need to remember," Hoggart once remarked, "every day and more and more, that in the last resort there is no such person as 'the common man'." The same can be said of the working-class novelist. Perhaps the greatest compliment one can pay Alan Sillitoe is to say that, in an age of movements and alliances, shared assumptions and mass thought – all the collectivist baggage that hangs around the writer's neck like so many millstones – he represented no one but himself.
--
DJ Taylor
The Guardian, Saturday 1 May 2010 Article history
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Follow Me...at your own risk!

Follow Me...at your own risk!

Wednesday, November 4, 2009
'Twitter lists' expand author networks!

Twitter recently launched a lists function, which will help users separate followers into categories that other Tweeters can follow with the touch of a button.
Mashable wrote an article about Twitter lists (still in Beta) in mid-October. Twitter announced the move in a blog post in September.
When I first started exploring the lists function today, I thought it would be a terrific tool to meet new authors, publicists and publishers, and others who have similar political views as myself.
After working with it a while, though, I wasn't sure just how it would fit into my daily Twitter life. There are some highlights - and functionality that could help authors with Internet promotions. There are also some drawbacks.
Pros:
When I logged on today, I found myself already on 14 lists. By the end of the day, it was nearly 20. I went to each of the lists to see who thought I was cool enough to add. Then, I made sure I followed them. I also checked out the others on the list and added those I liked to my own network. I may not have found these contacts otherwise.
The most lists you are on, the broader your network. That means more people can find you. This works for me well, as I want to expand my network, particularly with authors and publicists.
It is terrific at sorting tweets. As with some third-party applications, you can group your followers into categories. You click on each category for a limited list of Tweets just from these folks. This is much more manageable than the current @replies system.
Lists have their own URL, so you can share these on your blogs and Web sites to direct readers to your favorite Twitter users. For example, a paranormal romance author could create a list of other authors in the genre and share it with readers.
On the flip side, you can see which other authors link to you in lists. This will give you a good idea of different readers to target with marketing efforts.
Cons:
As with most things new to Twitter, the function is not user-friendly. It takes a LONG time to add folks to one list. I don't have hours to create lists; I have minutes. Twitter needs to devise a way to make it easier to sort through followers and categorize them appropriately - especially those with several thousand.
If you already sort your followers on Twitter programs like TweetDeck, this may be too little, too late. However, it is worth a look if you visit the actual site daily, rather than access it via a third-party application.
It appears that you can be put on a list without actually following, or being followed. That could lead to some issues for authors who have a very strict genre brand.
As with anything, the most lists you have, the more Tweets you check. I have several lists already and, of course, will want to check them. I will also want to check out the new lists I am on, just to see who likes my stuff.
Have you used the new Twitter list function? If so, what are your thoughts? How does this function compare with those in third-party applications?
--
Get added to my list! If you would like to be part of my authors and books list, leave a comment with your Twitter handle. I will add you to my personal books list, as well as one for @marketmynovel. Thanks!
Market My Novel
Ask Angela
'Twitter lists' expand author networks!

Twitter recently launched a lists function, which will help users separate followers into categories that other Tweeters can follow with the touch of a button.
Mashable wrote an article about Twitter lists (still in Beta) in mid-October. Twitter announced the move in a blog post in September.
When I first started exploring the lists function today, I thought it would be a terrific tool to meet new authors, publicists and publishers, and others who have similar political views as myself.
After working with it a while, though, I wasn't sure just how it would fit into my daily Twitter life. There are some highlights - and functionality that could help authors with Internet promotions. There are also some drawbacks.
Pros:
When I logged on today, I found myself already on 14 lists. By the end of the day, it was nearly 20. I went to each of the lists to see who thought I was cool enough to add. Then, I made sure I followed them. I also checked out the others on the list and added those I liked to my own network. I may not have found these contacts otherwise.
The most lists you are on, the broader your network. That means more people can find you. This works for me well, as I want to expand my network, particularly with authors and publicists.
It is terrific at sorting tweets. As with some third-party applications, you can group your followers into categories. You click on each category for a limited list of Tweets just from these folks. This is much more manageable than the current @replies system.
Lists have their own URL, so you can share these on your blogs and Web sites to direct readers to your favorite Twitter users. For example, a paranormal romance author could create a list of other authors in the genre and share it with readers.
On the flip side, you can see which other authors link to you in lists. This will give you a good idea of different readers to target with marketing efforts.
Cons:
As with most things new to Twitter, the function is not user-friendly. It takes a LONG time to add folks to one list. I don't have hours to create lists; I have minutes. Twitter needs to devise a way to make it easier to sort through followers and categorize them appropriately - especially those with several thousand.
If you already sort your followers on Twitter programs like TweetDeck, this may be too little, too late. However, it is worth a look if you visit the actual site daily, rather than access it via a third-party application.
It appears that you can be put on a list without actually following, or being followed. That could lead to some issues for authors who have a very strict genre brand.
As with anything, the most lists you have, the more Tweets you check. I have several lists already and, of course, will want to check them. I will also want to check out the new lists I am on, just to see who likes my stuff.
Have you used the new Twitter list function? If so, what are your thoughts? How does this function compare with those in third-party applications?
--
Get added to my list! If you would like to be part of my authors and books list, leave a comment with your Twitter handle. I will add you to my personal books list, as well as one for @marketmynovel. Thanks!
Market My Novel
Ask Angela
Sunday, October 18, 2009
From Gambit: Where was the Paul Morphy Chess Club?

Blake Pontchartrain
Hey Blake,
Ronnie Virgets wrote a wonderful column on the history of Paul Morphy. My question is: where was the Paul Morphy Chess Club? I can remember an uncle of mine speaking of it often as a place where men met for lunch, cards and cigars.
Kenny Mayer
Dear Kenny,
Virgets' story ("Chairman of the Board," News Views, May 6, 2008) about our local chess genius who died in 1884 at age 47 was excellent.
Morphy was the first great American-born chess player. He traveled to Europe in the 1850s, defeating all challengers except the English champion of the time, Howard Staunton, who refused to play him. Morphy, however, still was hailed as the chess champion of the world.
Paul Morphy Chess Club in New Orleans had several locations, the first in the Balter Building, in the block surrounded by Commercial Place, Camp Street, and St. Charles and Poydras avenues. The last was at 316 St. Charles Ave.
The club was organized in May 1928, when several chess-playing gentlemen agreed to form a new club devoted exclusively to the game. Members were solicited, and the club soon had officers and a charter. New members decided to name the club after the local chess master they so revered. The club opened its doors to members for play on June 22, 1928, Paul Morphy's birthday. There is no longer a chess club by this name in New Orleans, but there are several in America, and there's even a Paul Morphy Chess Club in Sri Lanka.
An earlier group called New Orleans Chess Club was founded in 1841, but it languished due to lack of interest. Later, many New Orleanians became interested in the game when young Paul Morphy burst on the scene. By the mid-1850s, the club sponsored weekly tournaments and membership increased rapidly. Morphy himself was elected president of the club in 1865. Earlier, when Morphy went to Europe in June 1858, the New Orleans Chess Club offered to pay his way. Morphy declined because he did not want to be considered a professional chess player.
Another famous club in the Crescent City was the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club. This organization was founded in 1880, shortly before Morphy's death. The club first met in July in a room at 128 Gravier St. There were 27 members. It was an immediate success and membership grew rapidly. New quarters had to be found, so the group relocated to Common Street and then to a three-story building at the corner of Canal and Baronne streets.
Then disaster struck: A fire in 1890 burned the building to the ground. Lost in the fire was invaluable Morphy memorabilia. The owner of the structure agreed to rebuild, and soon the club was re-established in comfortable surroundings on the third floor. At this point, there were more than 1,100 members.
In 1920, another move brought the club to 120 Baronne St., where the men played various games in splendor. It occupied four floors in a large building, which had many rooms for games, as well as dining rooms, a billiard hall, a library and bedrooms for men who lived at the club.
It was after the death of Judge Leon Labatt - a strong supporter and member of the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club - and a number of resignations that the members decided to form a new group: the Paul Morphy Chess Club.
Morphy retired from chess long before his death. He played absolutely no games of chess with anyone after 1869.
--
To read my chess novel about Paul Morphy's life, please see this link.
From Gambit: Where was the Paul Morphy Chess Club?

Blake Pontchartrain
Hey Blake,
Ronnie Virgets wrote a wonderful column on the history of Paul Morphy. My question is: where was the Paul Morphy Chess Club? I can remember an uncle of mine speaking of it often as a place where men met for lunch, cards and cigars.
Kenny Mayer
Dear Kenny,
Virgets' story ("Chairman of the Board," News Views, May 6, 2008) about our local chess genius who died in 1884 at age 47 was excellent.
Morphy was the first great American-born chess player. He traveled to Europe in the 1850s, defeating all challengers except the English champion of the time, Howard Staunton, who refused to play him. Morphy, however, still was hailed as the chess champion of the world.
Paul Morphy Chess Club in New Orleans had several locations, the first in the Balter Building, in the block surrounded by Commercial Place, Camp Street, and St. Charles and Poydras avenues. The last was at 316 St. Charles Ave.
The club was organized in May 1928, when several chess-playing gentlemen agreed to form a new club devoted exclusively to the game. Members were solicited, and the club soon had officers and a charter. New members decided to name the club after the local chess master they so revered. The club opened its doors to members for play on June 22, 1928, Paul Morphy's birthday. There is no longer a chess club by this name in New Orleans, but there are several in America, and there's even a Paul Morphy Chess Club in Sri Lanka.
An earlier group called New Orleans Chess Club was founded in 1841, but it languished due to lack of interest. Later, many New Orleanians became interested in the game when young Paul Morphy burst on the scene. By the mid-1850s, the club sponsored weekly tournaments and membership increased rapidly. Morphy himself was elected president of the club in 1865. Earlier, when Morphy went to Europe in June 1858, the New Orleans Chess Club offered to pay his way. Morphy declined because he did not want to be considered a professional chess player.
Another famous club in the Crescent City was the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club. This organization was founded in 1880, shortly before Morphy's death. The club first met in July in a room at 128 Gravier St. There were 27 members. It was an immediate success and membership grew rapidly. New quarters had to be found, so the group relocated to Common Street and then to a three-story building at the corner of Canal and Baronne streets.
Then disaster struck: A fire in 1890 burned the building to the ground. Lost in the fire was invaluable Morphy memorabilia. The owner of the structure agreed to rebuild, and soon the club was re-established in comfortable surroundings on the third floor. At this point, there were more than 1,100 members.
In 1920, another move brought the club to 120 Baronne St., where the men played various games in splendor. It occupied four floors in a large building, which had many rooms for games, as well as dining rooms, a billiard hall, a library and bedrooms for men who lived at the club.
It was after the death of Judge Leon Labatt - a strong supporter and member of the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club - and a number of resignations that the members decided to form a new group: the Paul Morphy Chess Club.
Morphy retired from chess long before his death. He played absolutely no games of chess with anyone after 1869.
--
To read my chess novel about Paul Morphy's life, please see this link.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Chess Book of the Year, Part 3

Ronan Bennett & Daniel King
Tuesday October 13 2009
The Guardian
--
Gligoric-Nikolic, Novi Sad 1982. Black to play. Who stands better?
RB Our third shortlisted book for the Guardian Chess Book of the Year award is Winning Chess Middlegames by Ivan Sokolov (New in Chess, GBP 24.95). Like our first shortlisted title, Chess Strategy for Club Players by Herman Grooten, Sokolov's book focuses on the middlegame, but whereas Grooten emphasises the dynamic aspects of the game, here the stress is on pawn structure. In an introduction Michael Adams makes the point that we often learn opening lines without giving serious thought to the kind of pawn structures they create.
Sokolov arranges his material into four different types of pawn structure: doubled pawns; isolated pawns; parallel hanging pawns in the centre; and pawn majority in the centre, further dividing these into subgroups. He then analyses the structures with reference to the opening. Chapter 1, for example, deals with doubled pawns arising mainly from the Nimzo. Chapter 2, on isolated pawns, looks predominantly at lines in the Queen's Gambit Declined. The essential point - but one often overlooked - is that from the opening we should be able to anticipate the structure of the middlegame.
The diagram position arose out of a Nimzo (H?bner Variation), with the characteristic doubled pawns on c3 and c4. White has tried to exploit the semi-open b-file to create threats against the enemy king. His rooks are doubled, the bishop is on b5, and the queen lurks on a3. On the other wing, Black's pawns are advancing, supported by the rooks. Who stands better?
Fritz assesses the position as roughly equal. But Sokolov is unequivocal: "A sorry sight. On the queenside White is not able to create a single threat, while on the other side of the board the battle is lost." The computer is wrong. White is dead lost. After Black's simple defensive expedient 1...Na6-b8, the game continued 2 Nf1 g4 3 f4 exf4 4 Bxf4 Ng6 5 Rf2 h4 and the pawns quickly smashed the white king's position.
--guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2009
Chess Book of the Year, Part 3

Ronan Bennett & Daniel King
Tuesday October 13 2009
The Guardian
--
Gligoric-Nikolic, Novi Sad 1982. Black to play. Who stands better?
RB Our third shortlisted book for the Guardian Chess Book of the Year award is Winning Chess Middlegames by Ivan Sokolov (New in Chess, GBP 24.95). Like our first shortlisted title, Chess Strategy for Club Players by Herman Grooten, Sokolov's book focuses on the middlegame, but whereas Grooten emphasises the dynamic aspects of the game, here the stress is on pawn structure. In an introduction Michael Adams makes the point that we often learn opening lines without giving serious thought to the kind of pawn structures they create.
Sokolov arranges his material into four different types of pawn structure: doubled pawns; isolated pawns; parallel hanging pawns in the centre; and pawn majority in the centre, further dividing these into subgroups. He then analyses the structures with reference to the opening. Chapter 1, for example, deals with doubled pawns arising mainly from the Nimzo. Chapter 2, on isolated pawns, looks predominantly at lines in the Queen's Gambit Declined. The essential point - but one often overlooked - is that from the opening we should be able to anticipate the structure of the middlegame.
The diagram position arose out of a Nimzo (H?bner Variation), with the characteristic doubled pawns on c3 and c4. White has tried to exploit the semi-open b-file to create threats against the enemy king. His rooks are doubled, the bishop is on b5, and the queen lurks on a3. On the other wing, Black's pawns are advancing, supported by the rooks. Who stands better?
Fritz assesses the position as roughly equal. But Sokolov is unequivocal: "A sorry sight. On the queenside White is not able to create a single threat, while on the other side of the board the battle is lost." The computer is wrong. White is dead lost. After Black's simple defensive expedient 1...Na6-b8, the game continued 2 Nf1 g4 3 f4 exf4 4 Bxf4 Ng6 5 Rf2 h4 and the pawns quickly smashed the white king's position.
--guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Karpov-Kasparov, KK2 16th match game, 1985
Thursday November 13 2008
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/13/chess-karpov-kasparov
Karpov-Kasparov, KK2 16th match game, 1985. Black to play and win.
Four titles made it to our chess book of the year shortlist: 100 Endgames You Must Know by Jesus de la Villa; Forcing Chess Moves by Charles Hertan; From London to Elista by Evgeny Bareev and Ilya Levitov; and Modern Chess: Part 2 Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985 by Garry Kasparov. Once again we drafted in Guardian chess club stalwarts Sean Ingle and Stephen Moss to help with the judging.
We all admired 100 Endgames for its clarity and practical value but, in Ingle's estimation, it lacked pizzazz (which, to be fair, is asking a lot of a manual on endgames). Forcing Chess Moves, which has featured in this column several times, was also well liked, but in the end it was also considered a little too much like a workbook.
From London to Elista is definitely a book rather than a manual, and Bareev's contributions are particularly impressive. But even this fine book has to give way to our winner ? Modern Chess: Part 2. As Moss observed: "Kasparov had a monumental career and with this series of books he is creating a monument to it." Some will balk at the ?30 price, but the great games, detailed analysis, compelling narrative and the insights into the psychological and political dimension to the struggle over the board make it an outstanding contribution to chess literature.
This week's position is from the brilliant 16th match game of Kasparov and Karpov's second titanic encounter. Kasparov's play is, interestingly, more like Karpov's in that it is positional and tight. On move 16, he succeeds in planting a knight on d3, dominating Karpov's position. Move by move, Kasparov gradually restricts his great opponent, bringing him in the middlegame to virtual zugzwang, quite an achievement with so many pieces on the board. On move 34, to get rid of the terrible knight, Karpov is forced to give up his queen for three minor pieces ? not a terrible exchange in strictly material terms, except that Black now played 37...Rc1, and after 38 Nb2 Qf2 39 Nd2 Rxd1+ 40 Nxd1 Re1+ Karpov resigned because of 41 Nf1 Rxf1 42 Bxf1 Qxf1 mate.
--guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2009
Karpov-Kasparov, KK2 16th match game, 1985
Thursday November 13 2008
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/13/chess-karpov-kasparov
Karpov-Kasparov, KK2 16th match game, 1985. Black to play and win.
Four titles made it to our chess book of the year shortlist: 100 Endgames You Must Know by Jesus de la Villa; Forcing Chess Moves by Charles Hertan; From London to Elista by Evgeny Bareev and Ilya Levitov; and Modern Chess: Part 2 Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985 by Garry Kasparov. Once again we drafted in Guardian chess club stalwarts Sean Ingle and Stephen Moss to help with the judging.
We all admired 100 Endgames for its clarity and practical value but, in Ingle's estimation, it lacked pizzazz (which, to be fair, is asking a lot of a manual on endgames). Forcing Chess Moves, which has featured in this column several times, was also well liked, but in the end it was also considered a little too much like a workbook.
From London to Elista is definitely a book rather than a manual, and Bareev's contributions are particularly impressive. But even this fine book has to give way to our winner ? Modern Chess: Part 2. As Moss observed: "Kasparov had a monumental career and with this series of books he is creating a monument to it." Some will balk at the ?30 price, but the great games, detailed analysis, compelling narrative and the insights into the psychological and political dimension to the struggle over the board make it an outstanding contribution to chess literature.
This week's position is from the brilliant 16th match game of Kasparov and Karpov's second titanic encounter. Kasparov's play is, interestingly, more like Karpov's in that it is positional and tight. On move 16, he succeeds in planting a knight on d3, dominating Karpov's position. Move by move, Kasparov gradually restricts his great opponent, bringing him in the middlegame to virtual zugzwang, quite an achievement with so many pieces on the board. On move 34, to get rid of the terrible knight, Karpov is forced to give up his queen for three minor pieces ? not a terrible exchange in strictly material terms, except that Black now played 37...Rc1, and after 38 Nb2 Qf2 39 Nd2 Rxd1+ 40 Nxd1 Re1+ Karpov resigned because of 41 Nf1 Rxf1 42 Bxf1 Qxf1 mate.
--guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Ten Commandments of Blogging

1. I am thy blog. If you're an author, you should already have a blog. If you're not yet published, now is the time to start.
2. Thou shalt have no other blogs before me. We all love reading blogs—we wouldn't be here if we didn't—but yours comes first. Write your own posts before you spend all afternoon reading someone else's.
3. Thou shalt not make of thyself an idol. Keep your ego in check; you always want to portray yourself positively in your blog. Your reputation is all you've got in this business, and if you earn yourself one as a likable person as well as a great writer, you're a golden calf.
4. Remember thy Schedule and keep it, wholly. You don't have to write a post every day, but keeping a regular schedule is a courtesy and a sort of unwritten contract between you and your readers; they'll know when to expect new content and will come to appreciate and respect you for that.
5. Thou shalt honor thy agent and thy publisher. You couldn't have done this without them. Give props where props are due.
6. Thou shalt not commit character assassination. Everyone has authors or critics they don't like, sometimes personally. Don't pull an Alice Hoffman. And, I guess, don't try to kill anyone in real life, either.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery, but thou shalt pimp thyself. No one sells you like you do. Facebook, Twitter, &c. The more pervasive your presence, the more likely it is that people will buy your book.
8. Thou shalt not plagiarize. Always quote. Always cite your sources. Always link back to them if they're on-line.
9. Thou shalt not deceive thy audience. Never post anything you don't believe is true, and be sure to provide links to any research you've done. Always be sure to clarify whether a point you're making is an opinion or a fact.
10. Thou shalt monetize. I don't do it because I don't consider blogging a part of my livelihood, but you, as authors, should consider self-promotion as part of the job. Let Google or whomever run a few relevant ads on your blog and make a little cash on the side. (Unless you've got a large readership, though, it probably won't be much.)
---
Copyright 2009 Pimp My Novel
The Ten Commandments of Blogging

1. I am thy blog. If you're an author, you should already have a blog. If you're not yet published, now is the time to start.
2. Thou shalt have no other blogs before me. We all love reading blogs—we wouldn't be here if we didn't—but yours comes first. Write your own posts before you spend all afternoon reading someone else's.
3. Thou shalt not make of thyself an idol. Keep your ego in check; you always want to portray yourself positively in your blog. Your reputation is all you've got in this business, and if you earn yourself one as a likable person as well as a great writer, you're a golden calf.
4. Remember thy Schedule and keep it, wholly. You don't have to write a post every day, but keeping a regular schedule is a courtesy and a sort of unwritten contract between you and your readers; they'll know when to expect new content and will come to appreciate and respect you for that.
5. Thou shalt honor thy agent and thy publisher. You couldn't have done this without them. Give props where props are due.
6. Thou shalt not commit character assassination. Everyone has authors or critics they don't like, sometimes personally. Don't pull an Alice Hoffman. And, I guess, don't try to kill anyone in real life, either.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery, but thou shalt pimp thyself. No one sells you like you do. Facebook, Twitter, &c. The more pervasive your presence, the more likely it is that people will buy your book.
8. Thou shalt not plagiarize. Always quote. Always cite your sources. Always link back to them if they're on-line.
9. Thou shalt not deceive thy audience. Never post anything you don't believe is true, and be sure to provide links to any research you've done. Always be sure to clarify whether a point you're making is an opinion or a fact.
10. Thou shalt monetize. I don't do it because I don't consider blogging a part of my livelihood, but you, as authors, should consider self-promotion as part of the job. Let Google or whomever run a few relevant ads on your blog and make a little cash on the side. (Unless you've got a large readership, though, it probably won't be much.)
---
Copyright 2009 Pimp My Novel