Just above the Bible, but just below Black Beauty

This morning in the Guardian I noticed that, just above the Bible on the list of the top twenty most re-read books in the UK, they listed Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Which is odd, because in the UK it is Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. But I was happy to see it there. (The full list.) And this on a day when a quote from me was on the front page of Google. (Beams foolishly.)

I just went to a small pre-birthday dinner tonight with friends, and it was one of the nicest evenings I've had in ages. Roger Avary saw Jonathan Ross's comics and original art collection and hungered for it, David Walliams apologised for telling me I looked like Lou Reed at the Stardust premiere ("I took it as a compliment," I said, and I did, and I told him the story of how I declined to interview Nico), the food was lovely, Matthew Vaughn told me that Stardust has now made about $118 million worldwide (over $20 million so far in the UK alone) and promised me one of the chandeliers from the witches' lair if I ever have anywhere to put it, and Holly hugged me a lot and told me I was a pretty good dad all things considered, which is as good as it gets.

Was just sent my avatar for the Second Life press conference thingie tomorrow. It looks exactly what I would look like if I was a lantern-jawed enforcer for a motorbike gang. Hurrah.

Sleep beckons. Also waves. Also makes threatening gestures and hops up and down until I notice.

Re: Your Brains

I'm in Chapter Five of ODD.... I think this is good, although I have just realised I have no idea what happens next and that the plot I thought I was writing isn't the plot at all, and that everything's different.

This wouldn't be a problem, but the book is meant to be handed in on Monday. Argh.

The essay on fairytales I wrote for the Guardian is now up, at http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2189656,00.html. It was meant to be 2000 words, but somewhere in there I crept up to 2,200.

The Guardian editorial folk did a mostly terrific job of editing me down -- although towards the end, I sighed when I saw that what I'd written, which was originally,

Still, the people who wanted fairy tales found it and some of them knew
what it was and liked it for being exactly that, and one of those people was
film-maker Matthew Vaughn.


I tend to be extremely protective when it comes to adaptations of my
work, but after talking to Matthew and to his collaborator, screenwriter Jane
Goldman, I felt safe. I enjoyed their screenplay and I really like the film they
made – which takes liberties with the plot all over the place, compressing,
expanding, changing, simplifying and complicating, all in the space of two
hours. (I know I didn’t write a pirate captain performing a can-can in drag, for
a start...)

But I think the reason I liked what Matthew and Jane did so
much is that they had treated what I had made as a fairy tale. Not as a novel,
to adapt or to ignore, but as a tale that they loved, to retell. A star still
falls, a boy still promises to bring it to his true love, there are still wicked
witches and ghosts and lords (although the lords have now become Princes). They even gave it an unabashedly happy ending, which is something people tend to do
when they retell fairytales.

had become,

Still, the people who wanted fairytales found the book, and some of
them knew what it was, and liked it for being exactly that. One of those people
was film-maker Matthew Vaughn. I tend to be extremely protective when it comes to adaptations of my work, but I enjoyed the screenplay and I really like the film they made - which takes liberties with the plot all over the place. (I know I didn't write a pirate captain performing a can-can in drag, for a start ...)


A star still falls, a boy still promises to bring it to his true love, there are still wicked witches and ghosts and lords (although the lords have now become princes.) They even gave the story an unabashedly happy ending, which is something people tend to do when they retell fairytales.

mostly because Jane Goldman is edited out. And she did a sterling job.

So here's a photograph of Jane being menaced on the Stardust set by a wet and ghostly Septimus (Mark Strong), by way of a small apologetic sigh.

What I did today

Dear Diary,

I sent off the Guardian article on Fairy Tales around midnight last night. Assuming they like it, it'll be in the Saturday review next week.

This morning I went off to Shepherd's Bush for the read-through of the BBC World Service ANANSI BOYS adaptation, with Lenny Henry (as Spider and Fat Charlie), Matt Lucas (as Graham Coats and Tiger), Rudolph Walker as Anansi, Dona Croll as Mrs Noah and the Bird Woman, Tameka Empson as Mrs Higgler, Petra Letang as Rosie, Jocelyn Jee Esien as Daisy, and Ben Crowe as Cabbies and extra voices. As you can see from the cast list, it's a very compressed sort of drama, but Mike Walker did a heroic job in shrinking the novel down to an hour's length, and the excellent Anne Edyvean is directing (we first worked together on the BBC Radio 3 version of Signal To Noise in 1996). I was able to offer a few suggestions that were useful, so felt like it was a good thing that I was there.

It will broadcast on the World Service on 17 November 2007.

Then I went to Headline books to sign 300 copies of the Stardust paperback.

Now back at the hotel.

In my not-much-actually free time I've been reading Ekaterina Sedia's THE SECRET HISTORY OF MOSCOW, a lovely, disconcerting book that does for Moscow what I hope my own Neverwhere may have done to London. It's part of the genre I think of as Magic City books, and in this one all of Russian myth does gloomy duty in a sort of Moscow Beneath that is a reflection and refuge from of Moscow above. In 1990s Moscow people are turning into birds, and each night the birds are flying out of reflected windows. The prose and the atmosphere is beautiful and decaying, and everything's grey with astonishing little bursts of unforgettable colour. It reminds me a little of a more pagan The Master and Margerita, but that may be because I haven't read enough Russian fantasy to compare it to something more apt. Deep, dark, remarkable stuff.

There are about 150 tickets left to the Criterion event tomorrow (6.00 pm, Tuesday the 2nd), which should cover the people who turn up at the door, unless there's a lot of them. (http://www.hayfestival.com/wales/browse.aspx?type=date&value=02-Oct-2007 is the link to get tickets if you want to be sure of getting in).

And here's the last word on the "Me and You" posts...

Dear Neil,
I know I come late to the "me and you and me" party (having spent all of yesterday at the National Book Festival, which was a whole lot of dusty fun!), but I thought you might be interested to know what my mother, an American Advanced Placement English teacher at a very good public high school, has to say.

According to my mother, "and Suzanna Clarke" is a participial phrase modifying "me," and, for your intended purpose, works just fine. Because you are notifying people who want to hear YOU, chatting with Suzanna, know where they can do so, your construction of the sentence is more clear. Technically, it IS considered more correct to say, "so and so and I..." but it is a matter of personal preference, and, for the purposes of your sentence, your phrasing is more direct and to the point.

So that's the 2 cents of an American English teacher with over 20 years experience and a more-than-usual insistence on proper grammar.
Cheers!
Emily

A webcomic about me and my hair... or about my hair and me?

The signing was fun and, er, long -- probably the longest lunchtime signing I've done, which I wasn't really expecting. I played with the Japanese brush-pens a lot. I like the way that sometimes good drawings you don't expect come out of your brush.

Working on article about fairy tales for the Guardian right now, and they've also put an interview from several months ago up -- http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,,2177992,00.html
and a pretty simple quiz that could win two pairs of tickets to the Criterion Event on Tuesday night at http://books.guardian.co.uk/competition/0,,2177394,00.html

The Times did an interview with Matthew Vaughn about directing Stardust, at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2538898.ece

Not a question but a heads up on the Latest Dork Tower strip:
http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1286
I am sure others have pointed this out as well but hey ho.

Nope. You were first.

Which reminds me that John Kovalic sent me one of these -- http://dreamlandtoyworks.com/my_little_cthulhu.html and it has become of my favourite toys...

Hey Neil, Just watched the Beowulf trailer - very snazzy - but I wondered, is it too late to get that fella to put a shirt on? Or maybe the Photoshop guy could airbrush one on or something? It is all a bit disturbing and a bit Conan. :-) Thanks,Pete

Yup. Too late. That longship has sailed. Oddly, though, in the morning scene in the Inn in the Stardust film, Charlie Cox is wearing a CGI shirt, because there were concerns that his naked torso could bring down America.

I was wondering if you knew if the stage production of Wolves in the Walls would be playing anywhere other than New York. I live in Chicago and would absolutely love to go (and take my mother, who is also a huge fan) but just can't afford to make it to NY. You have a huge Midwest following - which I am sure you already know, and I know it would be a hit out here. Thank you for your time and help. Jessica

Not that I know of at this time. When I hear anything, I'll post it here. If you have an appropriate local theatre, tell them you want to see it. You never know...

And this last one really puzzled me, mostly because it's citing something I can't recall encountering before. I'm on the road, so couldn't check the reference works I'd usually look at,

Dear Neil,

Hi! Sounds like you're having quite the time traipsing 'round the world!

So, to business:

You have written something in your blog that set off my "pet peeve alert." :

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Do not use "me and him." (Your actual statement was "me and Susanna.")

Naming oneself first, rather than last, drives me crazy!

It used to be that only uneducated people talked that way, but now I hear it everywhere, even out of the mouths, and blogs, of People Who Should Know Better.

I realize that a) language changes, and legitimately so, over time, and b) you are using a more casual voice when blogging

But, still, let's set a Good Example for those impressionable readers out there!

(And would Neil Gaiman, master of the English language, actually say "me and ...?" I shudder to imagine that.)

Carefully stepping down from my soapbox, and wishing you a Chag Sukkot Sameach and Shabbat Shalom!

-Randi

So the sentence in question began And for those of you who want to hear me and Susanna Clarke chatting ... which is grammatically just fine, at least the way that I was taught grammar. I googled and saw no problems with that construction at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/meandi where they give several mayor-and-party-based examples...

Me and my friend went to a party last night. [Wrong]
I and my friend went to a party last night.

My friend and me went to a party last night. [Wrong]
My friend and I went to a party last night.

The mayor has invited me and my husband.
The mayor has invited I and my husband. [Wrong]

The mayor has invited my husband and me.
The mayor has invited my husband and I. [Wrong]

...and then I tried randomly googling "you and me" (2.7 million) vs "me and you" (2.5 million), then "me and my friends" (about 2 million examples) and "my friends and me" (168,000 examples), and decided that if there was a general "me second" rule it was one that wasn't very well known. Is this a North American rule? Is it something I've missed? Definitive links or quotes from Fowler are welcome...