Lies, damn lies and referendums

The UK referendum on voting reform is almost here. I find myself increasingly annoyed with various advocates of the ‘No’ and the ‘Yes’ campaigns, who are being so conspicuously economical with the actualité. Some of the campaigning literature posted through my letterbox in the last couple of weeks has been risible.

Electing a government is not the proof of democracy. Democracy is proved when a government is dismissed – without the use of guns. This separation of authority from physical coercion ranks among humanity’s greatest triumphs. It deserves to be taken seriously.

Perhaps that is why I find myself getting so annoyed when people misrepresent the different options before us. They are disrespecting the very democracy they claim to want to uphold.
So here is my summary of the voting options:

• The present system simply returns the candidate who receives the most votes - even if that person is intensely disliked by the majority of voters.

• The AV system tends to return candidates who are not so widely hated, though they might not be the ones with the most first votes.

Either system would be fine. They just lead to slightly different flavours of representation.

Governments tend to accumulate unpopularity over time. Therefore, the AV system would probably make three-term governments less likely. If you think governments are able to do more good through a longer term in power, then you probably want to vote to keep the present system. But if you think that governments are better for having shorter periods in power, then you probably want to vote for a change to AV.

I still haven’t decided.

Sir Jim Rose report on Dyslexia

The long awaited report by Sir Jim Rose on "Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties" has been published.

Significantly, the report provides an authoritative statement that dyslexia does exist.

It also offers a description of dyslexia, which seems likely to be helpful in reducing confusion and may well become a standard definition. (The existence of a multiplicity of definitions has curiously been used in the past as an argument against existence of the condition. Some strange logic there.)

The report admits that research into dyslexia has tended to keep a narrow focus on reading and writing, even though many dyslexics would regard other issues as more significant. It does mention (in section 5) some of the related issues that dyslexics face - though this is touched on rather briefly.

On the negative side, the report does seem to fall too easily into the language of disability. If there are references to typical dyslexic strengths, I have been unable to find them. It seems to me that this was a missed opportunity.

Dyslexic strengths are under researched and under reported. When we look at the widely published lists of successful dyslexics, we are reminded of people who learned to harness exactly these strengths.

Why some great books don't get published

I'm still thinking about the talk given last week by Corinne Souza of Picnic Books.

During her talk Corinne observed that nowhere else but in the publishing is there a product being produced which people are hungry for but which is not being delivered to them. This was such an arresting observation that I have kept thinking about it since.



The origin of this strange situation can be traced back to the early part of the last century, when publishers set up something called the Net Book Agreement. The agreement stopped shops selling books for lower than the cover price. The effect of this was that no shop could try undercutting other shops. The public paid anomalously large prices for their books and booksellers large and small thrived.

But such an agreement was always doomed to collapse. It was a restrictive practice. A cartel. The inevitable started in 1991 when Waterstones among others started selling books at discount. If there was to be a price war the big chains could use their buying power to get better prices than independent bookshops. The economies of scale would enable them to undercut and put the squeeze on their competitors. The collapse of the agreement was completed in 1997 when it was finally declared illegal.

Anyone buying books in the UK will have seen the result. Small operators have largely disappeared. (Leicester lost its last two independent general bookstores last year.) Supermarkets had even greater buying power than the big stores and started selling paperbacks for under £3 a shot, thus undercutting even the big bookshop chains.

Low prices and huge volumes are now the name of the game. Thus the vast majority of the money in the publishing industry is made on the top few hundred best sellers.

If you were working for one of the main publishers, of course you'd be looking for books that would sell in large volumes from the shelves of Tesco. You might regretfully decline to publish the more risky, quirky, individual and challenging books that arrived on your desk in manuscript form. Such books would once have found outlets through the independent bookshops. But line those books up in a supermarket... would they really sell at the required volumes.

Curiously, when I go visiting book groups and do talks in libraries, I meet many people who are searching for the kind of literature that they don't find on supermarket shelves. "Give us things that are quirky, individual and challenging," they say.

Which brings us back to Corinne Souza's comment. These books are being written. There are people out there looking to buy them. But the mainstream publishing industry is not bridging the gap. Something is broken.

Perhaps that explains the recent flowering of new independent publishers, often rooted in regions outside London, often publishing books that are being turned down by the big players. Having said that, I see many books in manuscript form. Five of them in recent years have been so stunningly brilliant that I was sure they would be picked up - and yet have to this day remained unpublished. (I am talking about manuscripts of obviously greater quality, originality and importance than many of the books reaching the supermarket shelves.)

In this article, I haven't mentioned the Internet. Amazon. Viral marketing. Print on demand. Digital publishing. I will write more about that in another article.

As ever, please leave comments, because I would love to hear your views on this.

Burnout location and Backlash theme

I was walking back home from Leicester last week and took a detour through Western Park. Those of you who have read BURNOUT will perhaps remember it as the setting for a dead-of-night chase and the digging up of something long-buried. I won't say what - that would be a spoiler!

Some people have asked me about the feasibility of burying anything in a public park. The plan of the park (above) doesn't give a hint of the extent to which it is split by extensive drifts of trees.


It would be a confusing place to walk through at night. Easily big enough to get lost in. Easily big enough to bury things without them being discovered.

Two more snaps from my walk to show contrasting images of Leicester. These are connected to my first novel, BACKLASH. The first picture shows the remains of a neo-Nazi poster, stuck on the perspex of a bus shelter. Yes, there are a few people who want to incite racial hatred, even in Leicester. (It is worth pointing out that the poster was immediately reported by the children who use the bus stop and was promptly removed.)

And then to a picture reflecting Leicester's inter-community harmony. Below is the edge of a drift of woodland on Western Park. It was planted in 1993 by volunteers from Leicester's different faith communities. We had Baha'is, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs all working together. Being the organiser, I had to stay on the park all afternoon. It was a cold, wet winter day and the wind was hissing through the grass. But now look at those trees. It makes me smile to see it.

Does Dyslexia Exist?

I came across this blog article today and felt moved to write a response. In brief, the article states that 'dyslexia does not exist'. Regular readers will know I disagree. My response to the article is below:

To begin with Graham Stringer's remarks: he seems to have based his article on the astounding assumption that if someone can be taught to read and write then they cannot be dyslexic. He added to that with literacy statistics from different countries for which I can find no basis in fact. If his article was intended as a means of self-publicity, it has certainly worked. I did pursue the Labour party about it and they confirmed that he was not reflecting party policy (their response to my questions on the issue can be found here.)



In contrast to Graham Stringer's risible article, Julian Elliott's work is coherent and based on facts. The popular presentations of his work, however, take a similarly narrow definition of the problem. The argument seems to be that once a child has been taught to read and write, the question of dyslexia has no more meaning.

This is at odds with my experience.

I have known many adults who struggled through the education system, eventually managing to learn to read and write, but in adult life always felt out of step with the world around them - sensing that other people were doing things differently but not quite being able to put their finger on what the difference was. Then at some point (typically when they re-entered education) it was pointed out to them that they were probably dyslexic.

Suddenly their many strange quirks fell into a pattern. The fact that they could not easily remember left from right or track the flow of time or retrace their steps out of a big building. Their anomalous abilities were also pointed out to them. It was a moment of huge relief for many. A psychological burden being removed. A puzzle explained.

I am quite prepared to look at arguments that say the funding structures in education are distorted by the idea of a single one-size-fits-all diagnosis of 'dyslexia'. And synthetic phonics – wonderful. If it works, let its use be expanded. (It seems to be extremely similar to the system that was used to teach me after I was diagnosed with dyslexia back in the 1970s.) But to say: because we can now teach all children to read and write 'dyslexia doesn’t exist' is to miss the point entirely.

Dyslexia is a physical difference in the brain that gives rise to a fairly well established cluster of differences in functioning - positive and negative. It is not - as its name implies, and Stringer clearly believes - a synonym for illiteracy.

As to the assertion that: "if you cannot accurately define or diagnose something then it cannot be said to exist" - science progresses by making observations of phenomena that are imperfectly understood, forming hypotheses and then testing them.

Dyslexia was a term coined to described a perplexing phenomenon. Since that time understanding has increased. But no one would say that it is yet fully understood. Far from it. Perhaps, when the science of the brain has progressed further it will turn out to be more than one condition. I would think that is highly likely.

Early medicine might have described many different illnesses with the same words - “a fever” perhaps, or a “congestion of the lungs”. It took developments in medicine before the specific causes could be identified - different varieties of flu, which can only now be defined genetically. H1N1 flu existed before it could be properly defined or diagnosed.

Dyslexia exists also.

Google Book Settlement - update

More news on the Google Book Settlement.

The long running saga of the Google Book Settlement seems about to get longer. It kicked off when Google's decided to scan libraries of books in order to make them available through the Internet - without asking all the authors for permission first.

Some authors didn't like this and a case started to trundle forward along expensive legal rails. As a result a settlement has been reached between Google and an American body representing the interests of authors.

The word 'settlement' might be misleading here. It is not quite settled. There was a deadline for authors to register their desire to opt out and not have their work made available online. The deadline would have passed yesterday (May 5th) but has been extended to September 4th 2009.

A 'Fairness Hearing' is due to take place on October 7th 2009. I'm no expert in these things, but advice has been put to me to hold off from doing anything (either opting out or registering my titles) for the time being.

Google Book Settlement

I used to like Google.

It's not that I mind them taking photographs of my street. It's not even that I mind them putting paid adverts at the top of the list when I use their search engine. But when they decide - without asking the authors permission - to scan copyrighted material into a database, which they intend to make available on a commercial basis...

Over the last few years, Google has been digitising copies of books in the US to make available via a book search service. Some US publishers have signed up to this. Fair enough. It has also been scanning books held in US libraries. This includes work in copyright. Your work? My work?

The claim they are making is that only portions of the books will be made available this way and thus it is covered by 'fair use' in copyright law. Some publishers and authors do not agree. Where does this lead? To the law courts. But that is an expensive process for all. Thus a settlement is being reached - on your behalf, if you happen to have a book in a US library.

It seems at present as if there may be a small initial payment made to all authors whose work has been scanned without permission. That would be followed by a share of Google's revenue stream earned from the author's work.

But all is not clear. A website has been set up in connection with administering the settlement. If you have books in US libraries, it might be worth having a visit. That's what I have been doing this morning. Another website with information is the ALCS.

The situation is unclear. If you have an agent or a publisher, it might be worth asking them for advice on this question.

RSS Feeds and Blog Indexing

Yesterday I was under-the-weather and didn't have the mental energy to do much writing. I did , however, have enough energy to feel bored. I therefore set about indexing my blog posts with labels. This means that you should now be able to see one or more key words below each posting. Clicking on one that says 'dyslexia', for example, should bring up a list of articles on that subject. Similarly for 'writing', 'film', 'creativity', 'publicity', 'review', 'Internet' and 'politics'.

To do this, I had to edit and re-save each article. A laborious process, as I have over the years written quite a number of articles on this blog. I got half way through before running out of patience. The rest, I thought, will have to wait until another day.

Then, in the middle of the night, I work with a worrying thought. Do the people who subscribe to this blog feed through RSS and the like, now receive ALL the articles I re-saved yesterday? Have I inadvertently spammed them with some 50,000 words of blog article?

If you are one of my feed subscribers, please let me know what happened. If you have all been flooded, please forgive me. I'll try not to do it again!

A "Gerald Ratner" moment for the BBC?

So Brand and Ross overstepped the mark. They've done it before. Given the chance, I'm sure they will do it again. That is the nature of edgy comedy.

Why the outcry this time? Why have the heads of government and opposition been driven to make statements? Whatever we think of the merits (or otherwise) of Brand and Ross, and however we take the event itself, it is surely worth asking how this has become today's top story in most of the British press.

Remember Gerald Ratner? A hugely successful businessman, he brought a business empire crashing in 1991, with one throw-away line in a public speech. Wikipedia, has an article on him which quotes his words more fully. Suffice it to say, he joked that his prices could be so low because his products were 'crap'.

An ill-judged joke. But I don't believe it would have been enough to cause his company's near collapse, if it didn't encapsulate something the public already believed. Not that the products in question were bad. Rather that the entire business elite were so out of touch that they believed they could openly insult ordinary people and that the public would be too stupid or too lacking in taste to realise. Ratner took the fall for the business community as a whole. If it hadn't been him, some other unlucky business leader would have made an unguarded comment and fallen into the same trap.

Back to Brand and Ross. It looks like the Ratner effect all over again. They bragged about Brand's sexual exploits on air and thus abused a woman's trust. They made a series of bullying phone call to an older man, who is much loved. And then they apologised with obvious insincerely - an apology that was only there to get more laughs. Thus, in one perfect-storm of ill-judgement, they encapsulated the widely held public opinion of brash, young celebs. Not that they are sexually promiscuous. Not that they abuse people's trust. Not even that they lack respect. Rather that they seemed to believe they are so far above ordinary people that they can do or say whatever they like, hurt whoever they like, and never need to feel sorry.

Strange how a few words can cause such a storm if they catch the zeitgeist. Or a few images, for that matter. Turn this idea around to the positive. Look at what Matt Harding has done with his dance (yesterday's blog entry). By showing the Earth to be one place, he has captured the real spirit of the age.

Blog Action Day 2008 - Poverty

Ten thousand bloggers writing about the same theme at the same time. Like many really good ideas, it is simple. Have enough people thinking about the same issue at the same time and you can change the world. Ten thousand bloggers. Ten million readers. Brilliant. Thank you Blog Action Day.

I know very little of poverty. But silent is no answer, so I will tell you what I remember.

I remember picking apples as a child, the trees in the garden so heavy with them that I knew we could never eat them all. Hauling boxes of apples to throw on the compost heap. Watching images of famine on the news.

I remember travelling in the Far East. Eating tinned fish and bowls of rice because it was the cheapest way to keep going. But knowing all the time that people would lend me extra if it ever got to be too difficult. I had resources back in Britain, I was good for the loan.

I remember the founder of the Land Bank of Bangladesh explaining that traditional banks only loan you money if you already have money, and that uncounted millions lived in poverty for want of credit.

I remember some friends from down the street. A man, a woman and four children. No carpet. No job. Little furniture except for a big television in the corner of the room. Depressed and in poor health. No belief that they could ever achieve anything from their own volition. Waiting for help.

I remember manning a display on the seafront at Aberystwyth during a peace campaign. The stall just along from mine had the slogan: “When people starve it isn’t for want of food, it is for want of justice”.

I remember seeing a woman in North Africa on a television program. She was living in a corrugated iron shack with three children. She had no backup. No one to bail her out if things went wrong. She was thanking God for all the bounties He had given her.

I remember reading about Abdul Baha’s years of grinding poverty, persecution, exile and imprisonment. After release from prison (following the Young Turk’s Revolution) Abdul’Baha lived in service to the poor. He grew food for them, provided health care for them, helped them to get work, gave them money if they could not work, gave them the clothes from His body. And I remember being hugged by a man who was hugged by Abdul Baha. I felt that hug.

So, please, today, remember the poor.

The search for extra-terrestrial life

It's called SETI at home. A program that you can leave running in the background on your PC. First it downloads a chunk of data from one of the big radio telescopes. This is a record of all that background white noise that the universe seems so full of. The program activates itself whenever it senses you are idle (fetching a cup of tea perhaps). It's job is to pick through the ones and zeros in the data chunk, and find anything that could be an organised signal.

So I downloaded it and am having great fun thinking that my computer might be the one (out of all the tens of thousands signed up) that will find that long-searched-for greetings card from a little green man or woman (though any colour would do).

But it strikes me as I watch it that the processing must be using some energy. And that energy must be multiplied by all the tens of thousands of computers taking part. It must equate to a volume of carbon dioxide. And CO2 - a greenhouse gas - is heating up the atmosphere. And global warming is one of the threats hanging over the future of the human race. And thus - through a (highly tenuous) train of logic - could the search for life on other planets be damaging the prospects of life on this one?

Perhaps not. It's all a matter of getting things in perspective. A couple of litres of CO2 aren't going to make much difference. Maybe, after all, helping us to get things in perspective will be the most important outcome of the SETI at home project.