How we label ourselves

Dear Everyone,

We all love a label, don't we? We love to label ourselves and others. I suppose it makes things easier for us to understand who and where we all fit in the world. But none of us just have one label and we can have multiple labels for different people. In fact, we can also give ourselves lots of different labels too.

I'm a husband, a son, a brother and a friend. I'm also a project manager and an author amongst other things. But these aren't the labels I'm interested in today. No, I want to talk about something else... I want to talk about the national/regional identity label.

Essentially, what label do I give myself when I'm describing myself to somebody new. Somebody from a completely different part of the country or even the world.

Would I tell them I'm a Londoner? That I'm English? That I'm British? Or that I'm European? I'm all of these things, but I suppose it all depends on what the circumstances are.

I'm a Londoner, but London is so big. And I'm from south of the River Thames anyway, so the truth is I'm a south Londoner. And believe it or not there is a big difference! To put it simply, south London is better than north London. But I digress.

I'm also a proud Brit. But Great Britain, has got 4 countries in it. So if I'm honest, I probably identify as being English more. Maybe, it's because I love football, cricket and rugby and the home nations all compete against each other in theses? Perhaps, if I was into tennis or athletics I'd feel slightly more British than I do English? Who knows? Oh yes and one other thing... Every 2 years during the Ryder Cup I'm a European!

So anyway, why am I going on about all of these perfectly plausible labels then? Well it's because of my novel, Dead South, and how different people from around the world see it and in turn me. Dead South is set in south London and quite a few reviews have stated that it has a real south London feel to it. Which is great. That was exactly what I wanted. I wanted to bring the places that I know and love to life and it seems that at least to other people from the UK that I'd done that.

I've been humbled by all of the positivity and well wishes that Dead South has received. At the time of writing this, it has an average of 4.8 stars out of 5 on amazon.co.uk from 50 reviews. I've also received scores of tweets and Facbook messages from lots of people who have enjoyed the book too.

But what about our American cousins? What do they think? Would they be able to get into the story or would it all be a bit too different for them? Would they find the jokes funny? Would they understand that cups of tea and not guns can really solve life's problems? I hoped they would, but I didn't know.

Book sales have been slower in the US, but the people who have read it have responded really positively to it. It's received  5x5 star reviews on amazon.com, but I thought that they could have been ex-pats downloading it and thinking of home. So I wasn't really sure. That was until the other morning when I woke up to the below tweet.

As you can imagine, I was pretty chuffed to see that an American was enjoying it and getting involved in the spirit of it too. That tweet was favorited and retweeted pretty much straight away. I also told anybody who would listen to me about it.

So when I saw the next tweet a day later, I had to pinch myself as I clicked through to the review.

To cut a long story short I was really happy with the review. And by really happy, I mean overjoyed. Now this wasn't only because the reviewer, Skid, said nice things about me and my book, but because he'd clearly put a lot of thought into it. It has depth and is really funny too. In short it is an excellent post. So excellent in fact that I decided to read the rest of his blog.

Skidsgig.weebly.com reviews technology. Skid is an avid techie and has had his finger on the pulse of all new gadgets and devices for over a decade. He wants to help people buy technology that will help them. But he does this with a twist. He throws in a little zombie humour to make it more interesting and also lets you know how the devices will stand up during and after the apocalypse. It is a must read for zombie fans, for people who are looking into purchasing a new piece of kit and also for anybody who just wants to have a bit of fun.

When I saw his blog I immediately asked him to write a guest post for me and I was delighted when he said yes. If it is half as good as I think it will be, we will all be in for a treat. I implore you to check his blog out because it is brilliant.

But before you do; have a read of his Dead South review below.

Until next time.

David

***

Review published on skidsgig.weebly.com on 25/2/15

Every once in a while I will leave the self-appointed task of reviewing gadgets in an effort to discuss something especially thought provoking.  Something monumentally important.  Or at least important to me.  I founded this blog on the basis of reviewing technology in an effort to gauge that gadgets relevance before and after the Zombie Apocalypse, and to date, I think I have been good at discussing several gadgets of relevance.

But what about the Zombies?  Have I neglected their relevance?  I think, to a point, I have.  An outstanding read is the classic book “I am Legend” by Richard Matheson.  (No, not the movie.  Neither the Will Smith version or “The Omega Man”.)  Yes, I know, not Zombies.  Vampires.  But, this book is genius in its approach.  The Vampires have taken over the world and only one human remains.  During daytime he wanders the earth killing sleeping Vampires.  He has become the Vampire “bogeyman.”  And really, you could put any monster into that role with the same results.  A world full of Werewolves, Gargoyles, Swamp Monsters, you name it.  If they were the population and hunted in their sleep, they would fear their manifested bogeyman.

Except Zombies.  This is what makes them unique.  If you populated the entire planet with Zombies, with the exception of one human being, who would roam around during the off hours slaying Zombies, they wouldn’t care.  Nope, not one bit.  No Zombie headlines, no Zombie news reports.  It would go monumentally unnoticed.  And you know why?  Because Zombies are stupid.

I realize that right here I have universally offended all of my Zombie readers, who are now, most likely, dialing up their Zombie lawyers to sue me for insulting them.  But thats a risk I’m willing to take, and I don’t mean it (not really) as an insult.  It’s an observation, and one that’s rarely made in modern Zombie literature.  But occasionally you will come across a great book that approaches Zombies in the classic sense.  A book that is entertaining but also an epic understanding of the post Apocalyptic world of Zombie kind.  

50% through David Brinson’s “Dead South: The Zombie Apocalypse in London” and that’s what I believe I have discovered.  Brilliant in description and character development, I have found myself thoroughly entranced as I flip through the digital pages.  I am not from London, nor have I lived in London, but I have had no problem imagining the environment so eloquently written by Mr. Brinson. 

To be fair, there’s been a slight learning curve as I catch up to the written environment, and I did have to google what a “Mini Metro” looked like.  (Seriously UK readers, that’s not a pretty vehicle!)  But what really separates Mr. Brinson from the average author is his excellent ability to script dialogue. 

I know, I’m not an author.  But I’m an avid reader.  And I know good dialogue.  And he’s done it.  I will admit, as a Yank I have to give Mr. Brinson the advantage, because his country invented the language I have been mangling it for years.  He has taken that advantage and penned an excellent read.

Details?  I’m 50% through, and I don’t want to give away spoilers.  But here’s what I can say - the story revolves around Dean, and his efforts to gather his family and friends to areas of safety during the beginning days of the Zombie Apocalypse.  Dean, as a hero, is perfect.  Quick and deliberate to act, constantly planning his approaches to the Zombie hordes.  There is an abundance of characters, but the book is so well written it is easy to keep them oriented as you read.

There is also an abundance of Zombies.  And, that brings me to my point.  David Brinson writes to the type of Zombie I prefer.  His hero understands that the Zombie is neither fast nor brilliant, and is able to plan effectively around the situations he finds himself in.  This is the situation I think I am easiest able to personify.  I think, in this situation, I could out think a Zombie.  It’d be close, but I think I’m up to that challenge!

I love a good joke.  I love classic Zombie humor.  This excerpt was fantastic, ““Sébastien Loeb, eat your heart out.” (Now before anybody judges me, at the time I had no idea that the nine-time World Rally Champion was indeed eating somebody’s heart out.)”

The State of the English Game - A Guest Post by Marlon Hope

Dear All,

Today I'm taking a step away from the literary norm of this blog and will be doing the first of what I hope will be many guest posts.

Last year, my very good friend, Marlon Hope (@hope_insight ), wrote an article about the state of English football. I found it very insightful and whilst I may not have agreed with every word, I thought it was too good not to share with the rest of the world.

So if like me, you love football and have been continually frustrated by England's showings over the years, I'd implore you to have read and let me know your thoughts.

Until next time

David

***

As another major international tournament goes by (Brazil world cup 2014), and the England national team again disappoints, it is time to dust down our obligatory root and branch reform clichés. Many call for English football to adopt a policy mirroring that of the nation that has just lifted the trophy. And the debate rages on into the summer, broken up only by the reporting of our elite clubs pursuit of foreign tournament stars - the sexy exciting mistress, to the dowdy wife that is those England players, and all those beneath them that weren't even good enough to make the squad - until the start of the new season.

During my love affair with football, which probably dates back to that Michael Thomas goal for Arsenal at Anfield that clinched the 88/89 league title, you could take any major national tournament - with the only exceptions, Italy 90, Euro 96 and France 98 - and the only way you would know what tournament it was would be by the players’ names being mentioned. The problems, the performance, the out outcome and the solutions are pretty transferable.

An interesting, aside is that after each of the three tournaments where the nation saw a team performance that reflected and satisfied the public’s perception, we changed the manager? Should that tell us anything? Considering that objectively, this is a pattern does seem a little self-destructive?

But any way - I digress - back to the aftermath of our national teams failures. The general reasons proffered by those in the know - and all those who consume the media - is: English players aren't technically good enough, players were played out of position, our star players didn't turn up, players were not fit, fear, the manager can't get players to replicate their club form and unhappy camp. Oh and don't forget the need for a tournament scapegoat ranging from the manager, that player the media don’t take to (James Milner,  Owen Hargreaves – Euro 2004), player that made a mistake (David Beckham,  Phil Neville) or the advertisers dream, the guy who missed that crucial shoot out penalty.

I am sure so far I haven't said anything that is not recognised by anyone who has an interest in football.  I would even hazard a guess that most of the UK without an interest in football could reel off a fair few of those reasons. The hysteria gets that big. So, if that is true, and the best brains in the UK - administrators ex-pro's and journalists -  solve the nation's ills in the down time between England's exit and the start next Premier league season every 2 years, why does nothing seem to change?

Let me say, I am not football expert. I never played the game at any high level; I only watch the top tier English competitions, champions league and international tournaments like many. I do play a mean football manager but I accept that doesn't qualify me ahead of those whose opinions I have enjoyed watching, reading and listening to over the years. But, hearing the same solutions and seeing the same failings played out on continuous loop has lead me to question both the problem and the answer. If we know the question and the answer, why does nothing ever change? Are the solutions being touted the right ones?

This long process of football reforms has been coming for some time. Could you imagine a Fortune 500 company, consistently achieving the equivalent results over two or three decades? Would there not be swift decisive action followed by a strong upturn in performance? Even if the ultimate aim were not immediately achieved, surely there would be a trend of improvement?

Substitute in the England national team for the FTSE 500 company, and suppose I am suggesting that the two years between a international tournament, should be sufficient to see a team - with the right strategy and leadership - play as a cohesive unit, and perform to their potential.  Are the players in the Costa Rica and Algeria sides at this world cup better than those than all of those in this England 2014 world cup squad? If the answer is no, my next question is how many English players outside of the squad would get into Costa Rica’s side? The true answer to how many players are available to the national manager could lay hear I suspect. It has been said that the players we took lacked experience, but Wayne Rooney, for instance had his best tournament for England when he was at his least experienced so how does that work?

Okay, I have posed loads of questions. Let me imagine someone was mad enough to entrust me with the power to cure all of English football's ills. What would I do? Were it up to me, my starting point would be to agree some short medium term and long term goals. So I am not offering any new or spectacular revelations at this stage.

Short term objective: get the current national team to play to their potential. Perceived barriers: 1.      We don't have enough international quality players 2.      No winter break 3.      Manager lacks tactical ability.

Medium term objective: Agree and develop a national playing style. Perceived barriers: 1.      Clubs priorities conflict with the FA 2.      Getting managers with aligned philosophy’s management experience

Long term objective: Develop an infrastructure to support the development of the playing style into grassroots. Perceived barriers: 1.      Not enough coach (cost prohibitive) 2.      Poor/limited facilities 3.      No joined up strategy

I will attempt to cover my short term objectives for you now. The medium and long term ones may need to be a follow up to this.

Short term objective: get the current national team to play to their potential.

We don't have enough international quality players: I can honestly say, as annoyed as I have been by what I see from England, have disagreed for the longest time with the view England does not produce enough international quality players to service the national teams ambitions. I can think back to many a post tournament playground conversation where I would argue the virtues some player I felt should have been given a chance but either didn't get any minutes or wasn't even in the squad. Think of some of the players that didn't get to tournaments where the England team didn't perform. Andy Cole, Stan Collymore, Matt Le Tissier, Scott Parker, Steve Bruce. Are none of these players international class. Scott Parker like Gareth Barry established themselves right at the end of their prime, but for years were cast into that clutch of players that were not good enough for international football. It is easy to forget that Barry was Aston Villa’s captain marvel for years, with a not too unhealthy goal return, long before it was decided we was actually an England holding midfielder when he got his move to City. How many untested players are there that could have had an impact on the team - playing in their correct position - had they had the opportunity. Wayne Routledge has lead a journeyman career but get him to Swansea, with a manager with limited alternatives and a bit of imagination and he becomes an effective and established Premier League player for the first time at the age of 29. What might his career have looked like with a supportive manager and more game time earlier in his career? And why could he not have been an option for England this summer?

These players aren't the only ones. I am no expert, but if Ricky Lambert can go from League 2 to international and Adam Lallana, can go from League 1 and not good enough to be in Stuart Pearce's U21 team, to a £25 million international then there must be more examples out there. Could not Ashley Williams, the English born, Welsh Captain have added to England’s defensive options this summer had he held out any hope of a big club spotting his talent when he was at Stockport County. Or that his national team was not a closed shop cartel, one accessible to those with a significant media profiles.

The inverse is also true as shown this summer by Ashley Cole's exclusion form the squad. Here is the best left back we have ever produced. Still super fit, and after not playing for a lifetime walks back into the Chelsea team to play in a couple of their biggest games of the season. Not only does he play, he looks like he’s never been away. But, as his media profile has dipped due to being out of his club side, he is overlooked and gracefully retires. Never mind, who needs him, we have loads of players available to the national team don’t we? He is such a poor player now anyway; he could only get signed by the runners up in the Italian league anyway. #washedup?

My opinion, which I will admit is entirely unsubstantiated, is that players are progressed based on celebrity rather than attributes. If what I believe is true, how does that impact on our ability to assessment the ability and potential impact of a player. This is nothing new. Moneyball, approached this same scenario using statistical data, enabling a team to identify cheaper targets that offer you similar benefit to their more established counterparts. Where applied successfully, a players value will then rise as they begin to deliver according to the raised expectations.

I believe to have a style or play a system, you need to have players with the attributes to deliver according to the system. If your style is to send a long high ball up to the lone centre forward, and play for the flick on, your centre forward should not be Wayne Rooney, even if he is considered the forward with the most ability. I believe the best player available with the requisite attributes, should trump the star man when it comes to team selection. If there isn't a player with those skills in a top team, you go to the best one available if that job role is pivotal to your playing style. Play that out to the extreme that could mean picking a player that is a reserve, a youth team player, or a player from a lower league. The player might lack something the more established player has, but it is what they bring and how they enable your system to work - utilising those attributes - that I believe should be prioritised. I believe moving to a place we're a players worth, is assessed in terms of the required attributes to perform a role would make player selection more objective. Isn't that how recruitment is conducted in every other walk of life?

I think this approach would take the pressure off good players when they are left out of the team. If the big player doesn't start a game the media pressure is enormous. It has to have an impact on a manager’s ability to make the best decisions for the team if they are concerned about criticism of them, and more importantly, the destructive effect of negative speculation about a star player being dropped, on the player and the squad.

At the business end of this World Cup Per Mertesacker was withdrawn from the team with Germany opting for Hummels and Boetang. Germany plays a high line which requires defenders to be quick and mobile – neither trait I’m sure even Mertesacker would attribute himself with. The attributes required when the quality of the opponents improved dictated the new partnership would be better able to meet the demands of playing that system. No brainer.  No public outcry, just pure logic. Defending high balls around your 18 yard box Per would be you man again.

So to recap, picking players according to attributes one part of my argument that says England have more players that could be considered by the national team than they utilise.  Part two of this argument speaks to the limited playing time at club level experienced by potential England hopefuls. The biggest barriers to more English players playing regular club football - in my opinion - is the number of players clubs are able to own. Jack Rodwell, Wayne Bridge, Shaun Wright-Phillips are high profile casualties, but how many emerging talents miss out on meaningful competitive football from their teens’ to their mid 20’s. How does this impact the national team’s fortunes? How does a player spur themselves on and compete at the highest level with the margins involved in high class competition, when their career has only ever consisted of training? Faced with that prospect of an indefinite spell without the hope of first team football, should a player still be expected to maintain their motivation to excel?

This is already an established train of thought, and there have been recent calls for England to adopt the now famous 10 year German model championed by Jurgen Klinsmann to solve the problem.  I think I agree with Gary Neville when he said that could not work in our football culture, and with his assessment that wand waving was not an option to deliver success. The Greg Dyke commission has also looked into this, although the suggestions around competitive B teams seems highly elaborate, and I wonder whether its implementation is even feasible, and if it is, how the disruption might undermine our unique league football structure?

Saying it out loud, my approach feels over simplistic.  But whilst I can think of one or two major objections I think it would be simple and swift to implement. Under my proposals, Clubs could register a maximum number of players, with replacements coming from youth team squads, much like now.  The major change would be that clubs would be only able to loan out a named 5 players (on one occasion only) per year, irrespective of the length of the loan.

The reasoning behind this suggestion is twofold.

1.      By making it less attractive for clubs to hold huge stocks of player (they have to pay wages and can’t earn loan fees) it would encourage clubs to trim their squads and invest more heavily in those they choose to retain.

2.      If huge numbers of players that are nowhere near their clubs first team are released, it would flood the market with players, driving down demand and the comparative cost of English players. Reducing the cost of English players should make them more attractive to clubs reducing the need to seek low cost alternatives in foreign markets. Not only could that see the number of English players playing first team football in our national leagues, but it might make English players more attractive to foreign clubs, creating a stronger export market. The impact of this could mean more English players playing competitive first team football, with greater potential for a richer football education as they become more affordable to foreign clubs.

My unqualified view about a proposed winter break is quite simply that I think it is a red herring. Players playing in this league that represent other nations seem to be able to perform just fine when they go to tournaments. In fact a lack of winter break didn't stop three Arsenal players coming home with shiny world cup medal winners medals this summer.  A period of rest is likely to be beneficial, I have no doubt. It makes perfect sense, but I can’t believe England would have gotten out of there group stage had we had one. I think the significant problems are in other areas so it would be like sitting down to a cup of tea, and having a glazed cherry but not bothering with the cake - a bit pointless.

The manager of the national team is hugely important for me and on this point I have very little to add. I suppose, were I to write checklist for someone recruiting an England manager it would probably read:

1.      Can demonstrate their ability to set up teams that plays in a way that is consistent with philosophy of the national team – tricky bit is you have to already have one.

2.      If nationality is an issue be clear and say, English, British or any Nationality.

3.      Do not appoint someone and expect them to deliver football that is different to way they have previously achieved success.

4.      Pick the coach whose attributes best fit your criteria whether they are a youth coach, lower league coach or a recently retired player – Pep Guardiola, Brendan Rogers and Jurgen Klinsmann all show that a lack of direct experience is not always necessary to have vision, demonstrate good leadership and achieve success.

5.      Appoint on rolling contracts with notice periods. Seems to work in other walks of life.

Summary Short term plan for getting England on track for the Euro’s in 2016 1.      Impose a 5 loan out rule to dissuade clubs from stockpiling players 2.      Judge players by their attributes and not celebrity when pick an England squad matching them to job roles needed within the team structure 3.      Have a clear playing style and philosophy for the national team 4.      Can your manager demonstrate a their ability to deliver according to that philosophy 5.      Winter break debate, a red herring

I hope you've found this interesting.

Marlon Hope

Please contact me on twitter if you'd like to continue the debate @hope_insight 

The changing nature of writing...

Dear Everyone,

I love to read as much as I love to write and I have found that reading really fuels my writing. I love reading the works of Lee Child, Michael Connelly and John Grisham. Love them or hate them, the three of them are renowned for writing page turners. I love the way they let you inside the minds of the characters. They are experts at bringing the locations to life. I get enthralled by the action, tension and drama that they create and I enjoy the fast paced nature of their stories.

Now lots of the experts and commentators say that you write what you read and I hope that's true. I like to think that my book, Dead South, despite being a very different genre to the above best selling authors works, has those same characteristic. I wrote it to be fast paced and action packed and it's gratifying to see that lots of the book's readers think that it is. (Check out Dead South's reviews here.)

So, onto the changing nature of writing...

I just finished reading the 1899 novel Heart of Darkness by Anglo-Polish author Joseph Conrad. Not my usual fare, but I was really hoping to enjoy it, after all, in 1998 it was ranked by Modern Library as the 67th best novel (in English) of the 20th Century... However, I found it really hard going. Now, I don't think that it is because I'm a philistine, although that can't quite be refuted just yet! Or that the book wasn't any good. On the contrary, I think that it is simply because I am a child of my time.

The 21st Century reader and author are totally different beasts to their 19th and 20th Century counterparts. In fact, today's novel would be markedly different to something written 20 years ago. In short, the novel has evolved and it will continue to do so.

Conrad used intensely descriptive imagery, with very little conversation between characters - Heart of Darkness is essentially a story about a man telling a story. The reader is told everything by this man in sometimes excruciating detail, he gives you exact details of people and places, and it leaves little to no room to engage your own imagination. I found myself becoming passive in the reading process and as such I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped that I would. However, please don't let that diminish the truths of the book and what it was trying to communicate (The 1890s Ivory Trade is a both a harrowing and brutal subject). And anyway, it could be argued that it is unfair for a 21st Century reader to pass judgement on a 20th Century book.

However, the reality is that if written today, Heart of Darkness, would be a much different book. The themes would still be the same, but they would have been communicated in an entirely different way.

The best modern day authors work hard to keep the reader engaged throughout the story. They do not want you switching off or zoning out. They engage you by layering places and characters throughout a scene rather than in telling you everything about them in one hit. They allow you to use your own imagination and really become involved within the narrative.

If you have ever found yourself giving up on a book half way through, I would bet it was because you had become passive whilst reading it. You were probably spoon-fed everything and you had no way to engage with it and use your own imagination. We live in a time where TV and Film already do all of the work for us when we put the box on, so it is a real pleasure to be able read and conjure up our own images via a compelling novel.

Now as much as I love Child, Connelly and Grisham, I am not trying to say that they are the greatest authors ever. I'm not even saying that they are the greatest authors of our time. What I am saying is that they hook you with their stories and keep you coming back for more. Why else would they each have sold millions of books?

And if I am able to replicate what they do, whilst putting my own twist on it, then I will be a very happy man indeed.

Until next time.

David