Saturday, 1 November 2014

Jorg Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

If Harry and Jorg had been swapped at birth the Harry Potter books would have been rather different in tone...

It seems safe to assume that Jorg would not have tolerated the Dursleys. I suspect that an early attempt by Dudley and friends to bully young Jorg would have resulted in Dudley losing an eye to a ballpoint pen, having woefully misjudged the level of violence Jorg would be prepared to use.

The Dursleys would of course have put infant Jorg into the care system, possibly earning themselves a spot of farewell arson into the bargain. By his 11th birthday Jorg would undoubtedly have risen through the ranks of London's street children into some starter position in the criminal underworld.

Bully Jorg? Seriously?

It's possible that, deprived of the magical protections that were part and parcel of living with family, young Jorg would have been killed by one of Voldemort's followers - though by this stage the dark lord's power was still essentially shattered and his support scattered and disorganised.

At 11 Jorg would have received his invitation to Hogwarts and turned up promptly on platform 11 and three quarters.

On discovering his wizarding celebrity and the fact that Voldemort killed his parents, young Jorg would undoubtedly sworn a terrible revenge on all involved. When it transpires that Voldemort may in fact have survived, he would immediately become the focus of that retribution.The idea that the most powerful wizard of his time was out to kill Jorg after a failed early attempt would be a challenge that Jorg just couldn't resist. Brother Hagrid would be an early recruit to the cause.

More 'king in the North' and less 'I shouldn't av said that.'

The Sorting Hat:

Well it would be Slytherin of course. Remember Harry himself was almost a Slytherin - they're ambitious and ruthless, not characterised by the spineless spite of Malfoy or the moronic bullying of Crabbe and Goyle. Jorg would join Slytherin and approve of its ethos, whilst at the same time being dedicated to the destruction of Voldemort and his followers.


Jorg would recruit the most reckless, capable, and dangerous of Hogwarts' students - this isn't to say that they would all be murder-minded Slytherin though. Who among the Hogwarts intake might fit the role of Sir Makin or the Nuban? The truth is that Jorg would seek the loyalty and confidence of selected members of staff or wizards outside the school. Snape's old reservations would soon be overcome and the potions master would become Jorg's lieutenant. Working together it wouldn't be long before Snape was teaching Defence Against the Dark Arts.

Would Ron and Hermione feature? It's possible. Hermione as an extremely capable witch would be very attractive to Jorg, if her law-abiding nature could be overcome. Ron ... hard to say, but his family's anti-Voldemort stance would find favour.

Show us your dark side, Ron!


The story of Jorg Potter would be decidedly quidditch-lite. There might have been some early instance where Jorg showed himself to be rather good at the game. He would be a chaser, wanting to be in the thick of the action, taking out the opposition and scoring with the quaffle. The business of hanging around on the margins and hunting for a small gold ball would not appeal... Early on though someone would have been badly hurt - getting between Jorg and the goal is never a good idea - and Jorg would have lost interest after being lectured on the rules. He would spend his time playing the game that mattered instead, the one that's played all the time behind the scenes, the one without rules.

the game is a bloodsport - it just needs spikes on the front of the brooms

Props to quidditch players through - how uncomfortable is it to sit on a thin piece of wood while making 5g turns?


Jorg would be a very keen and able student. Top of his list would be an early acquisition of the unforgivable curses. He would put his cloak of invisibility to good use, paying regular visits to the restricted section of the library and making an extensive study of dark magics. There appear to be many logical inconsistencies in the magic employed - Jorg would attempt to exploit these to devastating effect.

Jorg's objection to Voldemort would not be what he did or plans to do - only that he did it to Jorg.

The Philosopher's Stone:

Jorg would make serious attempts to crack the mystery as soon as it came to his attention. These would include the use of spying, theft, and torture as required. Most likely Snape would just tell him what the deal was.

When it became apparent he needed to take possession of the stone before Voldemort got to it, Jorg would have gone in mob-handed, preferably with Snape, Hagrid and all his recruits. The solution to the barriers that couldn't be circumvented would be brutal and efficient. Can't they walk past the chess game or storm across ignoring the rules? Does the door really need a key or can it be blasted open? Would fire help? How about a pet troll?

The final confrontation:

Jorg would pull out his gun (from his days in the criminal underworld) and shoot Voldemort in the head before he could say Abracadabra Avada Kedavra.

I'm not saying it would be a better book - just very very different!

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

I pity the fous who don't read this book.

For the art lovers among you I present the cover of Prince of Fools as released by Bragelonne.

For the French among you I present the link to purchase the book!

Release date 19th of November 2014

Sunday, 26 October 2014

Foolish things.

I have a bunch of trade paperback Prince of Fools to give away - fine fat volumes, signed and stamped.

So it's contest time. All I need from you is something foolish. A photo, a drawing, an anecdote, a video - doesn't need to be original (though source credits are good).

I'll give five copies at random to entrants, and the best entrant will get a fine mug too!

Send entries to me at

Contest ends November 5th.



#29 Darrell (& wife's) first pumpkin moment

#28 Adam - a hospital tale

I am a man of few words, and even fewer coats, but I do own two such items. I work for the NHS and work cross-site, between two hospitals. About six months ago, I brought Coat A to Hospital A; it didn't rain, but I forgot to grab it from the hook. I went to Hospital B the next day; and, this being Britain, it thoughtfully poured down. I had neither coat, and got soaked. 

Cursing my luck, I take Coat B to Hospital B the next day, but again (can you sense a pattern?) leave it there. I travel to Hospital A, and it again rains, soaking me a second time.

That this happens once, might just be bad luck. That it has so far happened four times in just over six months, despite reminders from my wife to remember the coat, moves into foolishness territory. It has actually become a running joke at my workplace, to the extent that there is an informal pool to see which hospital I will forget each coat at; I understand the winner of the most correct guesses gets a bottle of wine.

And one of my coats, probably.

#27 Pieter - Badgers, mushrooms & snakes

#26 Sarah

#25 Filipe ... a foolish thing!

#24 Ben

#23 Joy - a note in a bookstore...

#22 Lisa - an old but cherished email

Sent: Sun, October 25, 2009 10:03:27 PM
Subject: My glass is half empty, big surprise

10pm- just off of work. Apparently I do not have enough to do while sitting in Afghanistan, deciding whether to study, watch a movie, or sleep during my 10 hours of rest. While making this huge decision, which I need to make each night (or day if I am on nights) I had a thought, and that thought turned into a theory, the theory into an epiphany. Oh yes, I will share this with you, of course. I am a sharing kind of person, as each of you know. Plus I really like being right, and after 34 years(yes I count my infancy) of being scowled at for being a "glass is half empty kind of person" (I heard that from 2 separate people this week, actually) I can finally agree with pride, YES I AM!!

    -I think that the "Glass is half full" people are not optimistic, but fundamentally stupid and naive. Why? Well, if my glass is half empty, that means it used to be full, and I drank half, and now have half left. However, if you say my glass is half full, that means someone only filled it halfway, and that is all I get. Only an idiot would be grateful and happy about getting screwed like that. See, you say, I have filled this halfway from empty. I have emptied this halfway from full. You dont tell some one you packed your bag half empty. No, you packed it half full from empty, or emptied it half way from full. I can't believe no one ever thought of this.

Please, fill my cup to it's limit, and I will empty it halfway(and then halfway again, at my leisure). Naively optimistic people can continue to be grateful for their half full cups, we can make twice as many happy that way. — Lisa H.

#21 Michael - another picture distinguished by being of the reader in question. #niceHat

#20 Dogancan

#19 Jeana

#18 Ben - a foolish foul-mouthed short story  

#17 Raymond

#16 Miguel - I'm not sure how owning my books is foolish ... but it's an entry :)

#15 Sarah and daughter being knicker ninjas!

#15 Dom

#14 Jade - Happy snake!

#13 Stacie

#12 Bev - I can think of nothing more foolish than politics and here are some quotes about the fools and foolishness of our political system from America's great humorist, Will Rogers. 

Will Rogers' Quotes on US Politics

"A president just can't make much showing against congress. They lay awake nights, thinking up things to be against the president on."

"Congress is so strange; a man gets up to speak and says nothing, nobody listens, and then everybody disagrees."

"We all joke about Congress but we can't improve on them. Have you noticed that no matter who we elect, he is just as bad as the one he replaces?"

"We cuss Congress, and we joke about 'em, but they are all good fellows at heart, and if they wasn't in Congress, why, they would be doing something else against us that might be even worse."

"The "Ways & Means Committee" is a committee that's supposed to find the Ways to divide up the Means."

"Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, they don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous."

"The Senate just sits and waits till they find out what the president wants, so they know how to vote against him."

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."

"Many a politician wishes there was a law to burn old records."

"A politician is just like a pickpocket; it's almost impossible to get one to reform."

"The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal. They have to live off each other, while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats."

"There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the entire government working for you."

#11 Alicia - the first entry containing the person submitting it!

#10 Kaushal

This actually did happen to me.

One fine morning I went to one of my classes, because hey, sometimes why not?
So I get to the lecture hall, and there's this bunch of students just sitting around outside the hall - whose door was closed. I assumed it was locked/occupied. So I also parked myself on the floor and waited,

By the by more students arrive and all joined us, like some weird protest horde. And eventually the professor arrives.

"What're you all doing here?"

"The class is locked".

So he joins us in the wait. At this point it's 8:15 (class is supposed to start at 8).
After waiting a couple minutes, he walks up to the door, grabs the handle and... opens it.
Apparently it was open all along.

The professor gives us all a withering look, like "What the fuck am I going to do with you dumbasses?"

#9 Paul

#8 Alexandros - Peekaboo!

#7 Andrew, "I saw this months ago in a newsagent window. I think they should have considered the layout a bit more to prevent me and my camera purposefully cropping their advert."

#6 Tiago - Crabstacio!

#5 Christian ... uh ...


#4 David gives you .... Billy with fish.

#3 Janine vs Old Lady

I have done many foolish things in my life, here is one of them: 

In my early eager student nurse days I spent over two hours washing an elderly patient, washing her only nightie, and rearranging her side room/isolation room so she could see out the window in her chair. I just finished when my other colleague came in to see what was keeping me so long. I beamed at her and said "look, she can see out the window now, I've tidied up all her room" she called me out of the room. "Janine she's blind, put everything back where she can find it please."

#2 Santiago - Jimmy Fallon and Robert Downey Jr.

#1 The Lolrus

Monday, 13 October 2014

Why didn't you...

Someone tweeted me a few days back with a list of complaints about Prince of Fools. He wasn't happy with my choices. 'Why?' he wanted to know. Specifically:

"Why though? Wouldn't it be more fun if the Viking was a coward or the story never left one tense location?"

Well... I suggested that he write that book.

Now it may seem foolish to suggest to someone that their book, occupied as it is by a journey of over a thousand miles across a variety of kingdoms and terrains, might benefit from never leaving the location it started in... in the case of Prince of Fools you might as well ask: "Wouldn't it be better if this book was a completely different book." ... presumably expecting a civil and well explored reply in the space of 140 characters. However, I have been asked more mild versions of the why question about every book I have published.

Often these 'whys' are asked in a manner that indicates the questioner has a very firm idea of the (my) writing process in their head. I must have sat down with a ruler and set square and designed each element of my tale, weighing up the choices, wondering what message they'd send and what world view they're promoting...

The truth is that I write the story as it comes to me - there is no world, no plot, no character other than the one I start with ... until my fingers move across the keyboard and then with a flurry of key presses, there they are. Asking me why the story does X or Y feels, on this end of the question, as meaningless as asking my why I dreamed of an eagle over a forest last night rather than a crocodile in a swamp.

There are other answers to the whys but they're not the real answer. The real answer is 'that's the way it came off the end of my fingers'.

One why asked quite often in certain circles is "why set your story in a medieval-esque world with all the power structures of that time (which I will proceed to hotly debate in any case)? why not set your story in a utopia where all all treated equally?"

On further questioning it turns out that everyone one doesn't have to be treated equally, just that the divisions shouldn't be along lines of gender or race - a Swiftian mockery of such prejudice is preferred where our hero is persecuted for being a big-endian. The thing is ... that was powerful satirical insight into the nature of othering ... back in 1726 ... I don't feel the need for it to be repeated in every book in the intervening 288 years.

Another true, but less immediate, answer is more technical and runs like this:

when you're writing you have to decide, or have an instinct for, where the focus of your story lies. The reader only has so much attention, dilute it too much and your story will fail to grasp their interest. There's a reason why fantasy stories are "so conservative".

The 'why didn't you' person says - it's a whole new world and yet you bog yourself down with the trappings of this one...

Yeah, there's a reason for that. Why am I so "conservative" that I measure people's heights in feet and their age in years? I could say, "Sam walked into the room. We all stared. At seven fuuts tall he stood head and shoulders below everyone else. He looked more like a three hundred and fifty yurg old."

The answer there is pretty obvious. Almost every fantasy writer will give you traditional measures of length and time because they don't want to dilute your attention - they don't want to force you to learn whole new measurement schemes that add nothing but confusion.

The same holds true for all the rest. The writer needs the reader's imagination to do the heavy lifting - the don't want to spend four pages detailing a zoob fruit when they could just describe the apple in three words and let your experience fill in the blanks. When the writer does employ differences they make sure they earn their keep, having meaning and worth for the story.

The medieval-esque setting (like the Eastern setting, the cold north with bearded axemen, the hot south with arab-esque inhabitants) is part of the landscape of the reader's imagination - there to be taken advantage of, saving 400 pages and a fuck-load of confusion.

Would it be 'clever'  to have the north an arid desert and the south a freezing glue-jungle with wooopa worms and flug-birds? Well, no, not particularly. Sure if that's the focus of your story, but otherwise ... you risk overload.

The focus of my stories tend to be characters. I want the reader focused on the character - what's important to them, what threatens them, what they need. If Jorg lived on a ring-world with six suns and a complex religion requiring devotations be made to three separate gods during the course of the day, and by the way it's a matriarchy with a symbiotic race of aliens that arrived two hundred years ago etc etc... it would just have made it harder to tell the story I wanted to tell.

So, yes, if you want the focus to be on how clever and imaginative you are ... weird me out. If you want the focus to be on your plans for utopia or your critique of modern society, play those games. But if you're going to criticise fantasy as conservative or me for drawing on the architecture of existing fantasy to furnish my pages with stuff for my characters to play with ... then you've very much missed the point of what most authors are trying to do.

Why didn't I play the rather heavy handed gender-politics games that excite a certain rather vocal section of the blog-o-sphere?

Because those are not the games that excite me.

Saturday, 4 October 2014

The Liar's Key - early rough for the US/UK cover.

Here's Jason Chan's rough for the cover of The Liar's Key (pre-order the UK version here).

In uniting the two cover styles for Prince of Fools into a single cover for The Liar's Key Jason has had to balance between the tastes of two different publishers/markets and make some interesting compromises.

The UK market (or publishers) are not keen on showing the protagonist's face - wanting the reader to be free to imagine their own version. So in the Liar's Key cover Jalan's sword will cast a heavy line of shadow (not seen here) across his eyes, a mask if you like, offering some ambiguity. And, while the artist has obviously retained the Beckham hair-cut from Chris McGrath's US Prince of Fools cover, he has perhaps given Jalan a little more dramatic flair/swagger more reminiscent of the UK Fools cover.

I did suggest a slightly pompous Prince Jal, or for Jal to be clearly edging away from the action but neither publisher believes their customers are ready for an epic fantasy cover to figure a non-heroic 'hero' so that didn't get realised. However, if you _know_ Jal then I think Jason Chan's final effort (to be revealed) leaves a little room to reinterpret the scene.

In any event - I think it's a fine cover and the Jason's undeniable talent has paid off yet again.

Monday, 22 September 2014

Grimdark Magazine, issue 1

I still make no claims to know what GRIMDARK is but Adrian Collins has boldly launched a magazine dedicated to the stuff and having been variously praised for / accused of writing grimdark myself it seemed churlish to refuse an invite to take part.

In the first edition there's fiction from myself, fellow David Gemmell Legend Award shortlister Adrian Tchaikovsky, Antaloy Belilovsky, Mike Gelprin, Gerri Leen, and Nicholas Wisseman. Plus Joe Abercombie and Graham McNeill interviews!

I'd love to tell you more about my own contribution, a Broken Empire tale titled Bad Seed, but anything I say about it is potentially spoilery. Suffice it to say that it relates to the coming together of Jorg's brotherhood.

Issue 1 is out in 9 days! (October 1st)
Register/Pre-order at the site now and get entered for prizes!

Check it all out on social media

Friday, 19 September 2014

Tyrion - the murderer we love to love!

(contains spoilers for A Game of Thrones / A Storm of Swords)

Tyrion Lannister wins all the 'most popular character' polls for Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire. Pretty much everyone loves Tyrion. They love him because of the charisma of the actor who plays him on TV - they love him because of the wit and charisma and empathy of the character as portrayed in the book.

I've spent a lot of time on fantasy forums etc and never once seen any criticism levelled at the character.

On the other hand I've seen enough criticism of my character, Jorg Ancrath, to fill a Super Bowl stadium.

(Jorg - by Kimberly Kincaid)

... and rightly so. Jorg does terrible things. Within the first 2 chapters of Prince of Thorns 13 year old Jorg distracts a rebellious gang member by steering him toward a spot of rape and murder, and (according to a short paragraph remembering the off-scene incident) Jorg, raised for the past 4 years in a band of killers and thieves, is party to the whole incident.

This isn't an accident, any more than Jorg's subsequent murderous endeavors are - I deliberately emulate the exercise that Anthony Burgess pulled off in A Clockwork Orange 50+ years ago. I have a young, charming, intelligent protagonist do awful deeds and see where the pieces fall, both in terms of the reader and the story. Do age and circumstance muddy the waters of responsibility? How long do we carry the stain of crimes committed at an early age? If that character also has many likeable qualities does it confuse our feelings about them? I never sought to give an answer, just to provoke questions. I try to dance Jorg around that knife-edge and different readers fall on different sides of it.

So, Tyrion:

Few people seem to remark on this but our Tyrion murders a teenage woman. Why? Because he finds her in his father's bed - a place where had she refused to go she would likely have met an unpleasant end. He's angry about who she is having sex with. It's a sexually motivated murder (*).

But we love him? He's our favorite character?

In the TV series they made Shae pick up a knife and try to stab Tyrion - I guess they realised that the book version paints our man rather darkly. But in the book all she does is try to placate his anger with an endearment and he strangles her.

We give Tyrion a pass.

My point here is not that Jorg deserves the same pass - he certainly doesn't - if people did that then a large part of the point of my trilogy would fizzle away.

My point isn't even that GRRM successful exploits the Alex-effect from A Clockwork Orange.

My point is just .... what? Really? Nobody saw that? Nobody cares?

... how come?

(*) yes, Shae testified against him in his trial - but
a) that was a show trial, the result was never in doubt
b) what choice did she have - what would Cersei and/or Tywin have done if she refused
c) Tyrion took her on as a prostitute - what part of 'paying for affection' didn't he understand?