McCain - a Republican to be proud of...

Conservative talk radio hosts hate John McCain.

Nobody can remember which outspoken pundit coined the term 'McLame' (my bet is Mark Levin) but they're all using it. Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. Even foxy fascist Ann Coulter is getting on the Hate McClain Train with her angry article here.

Ironically, the more the right wing rail against their leading presidential candidate, the more I approve of him. The conservatives hate the fact that he's not 'conservative enough.' I celebrate that fact - because it means he's a politician who's capable of making his own mind up, instead of sticking to tired and flawed political dogma.

Take, for example, the criticisms Ann Coulter levels against him.

Ann complains: He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

Liberals disliked George Bush's decision to appoint Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2006 - pointing out that the 'checks and balances' protecting the democratic process were null-and-void when you've got a conservative President backed by a conservative Congress with a conservative Supreme Court keeping them 'in check.' Or, rather. not.

McCain's criticism of Alito says more about his commitment to democracy than anything else.

After all, Alito has hardly eased the Liberal's concerns by his rulings. In United States v. Rybar he defended the constitutional right to own submachine guns, in Chittister v. D. of C & E D he helped the state government wriggle out of their responsibilities when they fired an employee in blatant violation of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.

Ann whines: He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

McCain's policies towards the issue of Illegal Immigration are utterly transparent. Since 2005, he has been one of the leading campaigners for 'orderly immigration' and penned the McCain-Kennedy Bill which offered a practical and fair solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

I don't agree with his policies - as a legal immigrant to the United States, I expect illegal aliens to be subject to the same strict rules and regulations I was. Any form of 'amnesty' is grossly unfair to the people who respect America's immigration rules - and reward those who break them.

However, one way or another, illegal immigrants in American need to be identified and held accountable. McCain's policies are a sensible way to do this. Although offering the 'carrot' of residency doesn't sit well with me, I am intelligent enough to see that it's a solution that would work - and do so in a much cheaper, more efficient and more humanitarian way than anything loud-mouths like Coulter suggest.

Ann cries: He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

McCain-Feingold was a tricky bit of legislation to get passed - since it dealt with some clearly corrupt elements within the field of political fundraising. Elements who have clout in congress.

The law itself prevents certain lobbying groups from enjoying tax-exemption as "political organizations" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527) - while at the same time, remaining independent of lobbying rules and regulations by not registering themselves as 'political organizations' with the Federal Election Commission.

A very clear conflict and one that's been abused for far too long. McCain was absolutely right to stomp this abuse of the rules out.

Ann Coulter's lying when she says McCain-Feingold restricts citizens' rights to free speech. In fact, it merely prevents cynical political groups from bending funding laws - and the only voices they tend to represent are corporations and lobbying organizations.

Ann whines: He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

One of the organizations that fell foul of the McCain-Feingold bill were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I think I'll have to post more extensively about this group of Vietnam vets and former prisoners of war. Their story is an ugly one.

This group lobbied during the 2004 elections to 'expose' the 'truth' of Democrat John Kerry's war record. Instead, they just exposed themselves as liars and political puppets.

McCain, as a former Vietnam Veteran and prisoner of war, quite rightly finds the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be a disgusting, cynical organization comprised of proven liars who turned on their former brother-in-arms for political gain.

Fortunately, some of those gains were mitigated by McCain-Feingold. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were fined $299,500 for abusing the funding loophole exposed by Senator McCain's bill.

Ann squeals: He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

I've already written about how admirable John McCain's opposition to 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is. As the only man in the Republican presidential race to have actually experienced torture, he is the only one who knows first hand what a cowardly and unAmerican act it is.

And while defending America is clearly an important issue for the Senator, he has never minced words when it comes to his condemnation of Guantanamo Bay.

People being held without charge, without trial and without accountability is totally incompatible with the spirit of American society. As long as prisoners are held in Guantanamo Bay, the United States have lost the moral footing which once made us the leader of the free world.

Perhaps we are handicapping ourselves in 'The War on Terror' by refusing to lay down old-fashioned ideas like due process, habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence. But Senator McCain feels that the moment we lay down those things, we become more like the evil that we're fighting. I happen to totally agree with him.

Ann dribbles: He supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

If anybody still clings onto the cynical conservative dogma that Global Warming is not real, I suggest they read this article on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, being written by the very people who read it, tends to offer a more balanced view of issues than the media. Even their articles on hot-button topics like pedophilia offer mitigating opinions from those in support of such disgusting child abuse - as well as those condemning it.

Yet there is no beating around the bush when it comes to Global Warming. It's here. It's real and the people behind Global Warming Denial are exposed as spreading 'disinformation.' There are no attempts to disprove this fact.

If Ann Coulter and the rest of the conservative right want to continue spreading their Climate Change lies, that's their prerogative. However, in recognizing Global Warming and making a commitment to combating it, Senator John McCain proves that he's far more enlightened than the more extreme elements of his party.

McCain 2008?

John McCain is one of the finest presidential nominees the Republicans have fielded in many years. I have great respect for this man and his commitment to old-fashioned American ideals like truth, justice and freedom.

It's ironic that cackling hags like Ann Coulter expend so much energy trying to turn people against 'McLame.' In actual fact, all that hot air helps lift him head and shoulders above his rivals.

I think John McCain's facing an uphill struggle if he goes face to face with Obama or Clinton in the presidential elections this November. However, if he did miraculously take the White House, I don't think it would be a bad thing for America at all.

Lies our pundits tell us...

Mark Levin - Thought talk is cheap? See his advertising rates!

Last night, as I drove home, I inexplicably tuned into SIRIUS Patriot - the right wing talk channel. I ended up listening to conservative New York chat-show host Mark Levin for as long as I could stand him.

His 'radio persona' is a vile, nasal little man with a short fuse and an enormous chip on his shoulder. It makes for compelling listening, due to the disgusting way he handles people who stupidly call into his show:

"It's says here you're a Liberal, Caller. Answer me this... Why do you hate America?"

It's also a bit like listening to fingernails down a blackboard, since Levin's a remarkably inept radio host.

He lines up 'cuts' from various speeches (last night it was Fred Thompson during the Republican debate in Iowa) and when he wants them played, he yells furiously as his producer: 'Cut four! Now!'

It's clear from his tone of voice that he expects the entire radio station to come crumbling down around his ears unless he yells instructions like a German U-Boat commander.

Listening to Mark Levin - whose show is inexplicably highest-rated for the time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Dallas - prompted me to write about my views on the American political spectrum.

Tight Spectrum

When I was young, there was a real political spectrum to enjoy in Britain. On the left, there was the Labour Party - who believed in socialism. On the right, there were the Conservatives, who believed in capitalism. It was as simple as that.

Then Tony Blair came along and convinced the Labour Party to abandon socialism, so we ended up with two political parties trying to occupy the same space on the political spectrum. Even now, over a decade later, the Conservatives are still struggling to work out what their party is and what it stands for these days.

I considered myself a stuffy old Tory, on the right wing of British politics. So I was astounded to arrive in America and have it determined that I was actually a moderate (with a slightly liberal bias.)

While pundits like Mark Levin might accuse the Democratic Party of being 'Marxist' and 'Stalinist,' he's laughably unaware of what it's like to live in a country in which those views actually exist. It seems the entire American political spectrum exists on the right wing of what we're used to in England.

And - speaking as a stuffy old Tory again - that's no bad thing.

Lies our Pundits tell us

Despite the spectrum being tight, people get very passionate about politics in America. The country's divided into two halves, the Liberals and the Conservatives. And in my dispassionate study of these two sides (I'm a moderate, remember) I've decided that I don't really like either of them that much.

It seems a hard-core Liberal or Conservative is fueled by their belief that they are better than the other side. Liberals believe they are more intelligent than Conservatives. Conservatives believe that they are 'morally better' than the Liberals.

And then there are the pundits, like Mark Levin, who make careers out of attacking the other side and spoon feeding their own audience exactly what they want to hear.

Which is, in all essence, a pack of lies.

What astounds me about both the Liberals and the Conservatives are the lies the pundits tell - and how the lies have been repeated so many times, people have started to believe they're actually true.

In explaining this, it's worth pointing out that the term 'Conservative' is pretty synonymous with 'Republican' and Liberals support the Democrats.

Lies Conservatives Tell:

Conservatives represent the working man: This is one Mark Levin likes to spout time and again. Despite the fact that he's a nationally syndicated talk-show host and best-selling author, he still describes himself as a regular 'working man' to his listeners.

But the Conservatives and Republicans are not the party of the blue collar, working man. They may claim to be - and their core support comes from millions of 'red state' Americans who buy into the lies. But it is a lie.

Conservative governments have always supported the big business model, the tax-cuts for the super-rich and the reduction of social programming that leaves the job of 'keeping America truckin'' firmly on the shoulders of the middle and working class.

Take Ronald Reagan - he cut the top tax rate (for the super rich) from 70% to just 28% - but the tax rate on the average man's paycheck actually increased.

Conservatives are fiscally responsible: This is a whopper. Although the likes of political pundit Ann Coulter might claim: "Taxes are like abortion - both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats" the truth is the absolute opposite.

The governments of famous Republicans, like Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr. and his son, George Dubya, have all been times of enormous economic upheaval. Reagan increased the American deficit from $700 billion to a whopping $3 trillion. It was Bill Clinton - a Democrat - who demanded: 'it's about the economy, stupid,' and put the American checkbook back into the black.

Right now, George Bush Jnr is trying to leave a legacy as a 'fiscally conservative' President by vetoing endless programs like the Child Health Care bills.

However, after running America into massive global debt, tipping the country into a recession and bleating for hundreds of billions of dollars in expensive foreign loans to support an unpopular conflict aboard, he is very far from a conservative spender of tax payer's money.

Look at the facts: George Bush Jnr. turned an $86 billion surplus left by Clinton into a $434 billion deficit.

Liberals Hate America: Mark Levin loves this one. Somebody calls up and claims to be a Liberal? Mark yells down the phone line: 'Why do you hate America?'

But Liberals don't hate America. That's just a lie. Sadly, it's been yelled so many times, it's no almost become a truth.

It's like a playground cry. It's just utterly retarded and pathetic. The next time Mark Levin accuses somebody of 'hating America' merely for disagreeing with his right-wing opinions, he deserves a firm slap around the chops.

Liberals Hate the Troops: This is the other half of the Conservative war cry. If Liberals call for an end to the war in Iraq, or question any Republican foreign policy, they're hit with 'you hate the troops!'

In fact, it's the absolute opposite. It's the Conservatives who hate the troops. Or, rather, they don't give two hoots about them. Oh, sure, they might buy 'Support the Troops' ribbons for the back of their cars, but at the end of the day, you've got to be pretty callous to put American troops into harm's way in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, Conservatives support the war in Iraq and aggressive foreign policy. That policy gets American soldiers killed. Liberals don't support the war in Iraq and want to troops brought home. That saves troop's lives. So at the end of the day, it's pretty clear who’s really on the side of the soldiers.

Now to defend America against the threat of global terrorism, it’s necessary to send American soldiers abroad, into harm's way. But doing that out of anything other that real, vital necessity sends American soldiers to their deaths for no good reason.

And that's the work of people who really 'hate the troops.'

All the 'Support the Troops' bumper stickers in the world won't replace the life of one American soldier killed without a bloody good reason.

Conservatives are 'morally superior' to Liberals: Conservative America enjoys core support in the Christian heartland. Christianity and conservatism are so intertwined, it's often impossible to see the two as anything other than a single entity.

Essential Conservative beliefs, like being against abortion and the rights of gay people, stem from Christian doctrine. The idea of 'family values' and 'decency' and 'morality' are all shields hoisted high by the Conservatives.

Liberals believe in gay rights. Abortion. Sex before marriage. Pornography. All 'evil' and 'immoral' things.

But morality goes beyond Christianity. A system of 'right' and 'wrong' based purely on Christian doctrine is no better than the Sharia law of the Islamic Middle East. In the 21st century, humanity must decide what's right and wrong based on more than the teachings found in a two thousand year old book. After all, millions of Americans aren't Christians.

And, hypocritically, core Conservative beliefs - like supporting capital punishment - seem utterly at odds with what's considered morally 'right' in any case - whether by human terms or from what's found in the bible.

When you hear Conservative Pat Robertson demanding political assassinations in other countries, or Ann Coulter gleefully admit 'I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment' it's difficult not to start worrying that a slice of the political movement that claims 'morally superiority' is actually just morally bankrupt.

The Lie Liberals Tell:

But it's not just the Conservatives who lie. The Liberal agenda plugged by the pundits is also full of half-truths and political porkies. The biggest one is clearly:

Liberals support Free Speech: This isn't always the case. Time and time again, the Liberals have proven that they support free speech up to, but not including, anything deemed 'politically incorrect.'

There's a deep seated and almost fascist agenda for 'thought control' amongst polite Liberal society. Part of the reason it's always the Conservatives spouting the offensive stuff is that the Liberals have a clearly marked scale of what's acceptable and what's not.

And most of it's stuff that's not appropriate in polite company anyway. Attempts to ban use of the 'N-word' (that's the highly offensive racial slur 'nigger') seem kind of redundant since nobody uses that word anymore for the risk of becoming a social pariah.

What's slightly more worrying - and stands up in the face of free speech - is when certain ideas get stifled or censored under Liberal pressure - like city officials trying to stifle San Francisco talk show host Michael Savage when he attacked their scheme to get tax payers to sponsor green card applications for illegal immigrants.

Discussion about the conduct of Muslims, or criticism leveled against the millions of illegal immigrants - both very serious issues concerning American security - is quickly slapped down with the cry of 'racist!'

'Racist!' is the Liberal equivalent of 'You hate America!' It's a discussion ender - a firm indication that the opposing party isn't interested in acknowledging differing opinions.

Gun Control Prevents Gun Crime: It seems an entirely logical proposition - ban the private ownership of handguns and gun crime will fall. The Liberals have been bleating this as long as the Conservatives have been bleating: 'Guns don't kill people... People kill people."

But the sad, documented fact is that it's not true.

Now, I'm no fan of private gun ownership and certainly don't understand why anybody who believes in the Second Amendment needs to keep more than one rifle over the fireplace (which is surely what the founding fathers envisaged when they wrote it.)

However, the facts have shown that gun crime actually increases in places with stringent gun control. Like in New Jersey, in 1966, some of the most stringent handgun ownership laws were put in place and the murder rate shot up overnight by 46%.

In 1976, Washington D.C. adopted an incredibly strict handgun ban (pretty much banning them in the city.) Yet this led to a 136% rise in the murder rate, while nationally, the number of murders actually dropped by 2%.

There are two facts responsible for this truth.

Firstly, that 15% of all handguns in America are unlicensed and unregistered - banning handguns does not take these weapons out of circulation. Given that almost all gun crime is committed with illegally owned weapons, it's clear to see that banning private gun ownership does nothing to address the root cause of the gun crime problem.

Secondly, private gun ownership is a deterrent. Compared to the United Kingdom, the burglary rate in the United States is a drop in the ocean. People don't rob houses here the same way they do in countries with strict gun control. Why? Because residents own guns and the law is on their side if they shoot dead a trespasser on their property.

In a country with a 'wild west' mentality, private gun ownership actually protects people. Yet the Liberals do everything they can to distort the facts and bleat the same anti-gun mantra over and over again.

Illegal Immigrants are not a problem: This is a subject I feel very strongly about. Having worked and sacrificed for the chance to 'make my fortune' in America, I resent the millions of people who come here illegally.

I chose to come to America. I chose to abide by America's laws and live within the bounds of it's incredibly diverse culture. I chose to contribute to the workforce and the tax-pile. I chose to live as an American because I deeply respect the history and mentality of this great nation.

And illegal immigrants don't.

They don't abide by immigration laws - and therefore criminal and civil laws are equally meaningless to them. They can't get driving licenses, insurance or inspections - so they go without and leave the costs of injuries and accidents to the tax-paying American people.

In one county upstate, a whopping 25% of all criminals arrested turned out to be illegal immigrants. Across America, the entire nation is forced to become bilingual. Essential costs the average American has to shoulder - like healthcare, local taxes and schooling fees - creep ever upwards as undocumented workers use civil services without contributing to them.

Illegal immigration from 'south of the border' is the greatest threat to the cultural, financial and institutional stability of the United States of America. But just like an alcoholic's 'elephant in the living room,' no Liberal will dare address the issue.

Because calling it out is akin to racism. And racism - just like the Conservative cry of 'You Hate America' - is that blanket protest that stifles all free expression.

Liberals are more intelligent than Conservatives: Like it or not, there is bias in the Liberal media to pigeonhole Conservatives. They're either the big, greedy, corporate 'fat cats' or, more likely, they're the poor working-class folk who 'foolishly' vote for Conservative politicians.

And this bias is easy to see. Turn on a sitcom or political satire show and any footage of President Bush doing something dumb (of which there are countless clips) is usually followed by a Liberal rolling his eyes, considering which 'chumps' voted for the man.

A common Liberal cry is: 'We didn't vote for him!' which neatly opens up the fact that, in the 2004 election, 51% of the American population DID vote for George W. Bush.

Cue the map of the United States which shows the guilty party - the 'red' states.

Yes, Liberals consider themselves smarter than 'red staters.' And on the whole, just like Conservatives generally consider themselves the 'moral superiors' to Liberals, Liberals generally consider themselves the intellectual superiors to their Conservative cohorts - and not without some reason. 49% of self-confessed Liberals are college educated.

However, the average Conservative-voting 'red stater' isn't dumb. Not by any means. They're voters who care about having low taxes, a secure country, a job to go to and a politician who goes to church and seems to represent the same values as they do.

That's not dumb by any means. In fact, that's kind of smart.

Liberals can claim to be more intellectual that Conservatives - but it's just arrogant to pretend they're smarter.

In Conclusion

Remarkably, the people who decide elections and control the electoral process in the United States are neither the Liberals or the Conservatives.

It's actually the people like me - the 'undecided' moderates who support a side depending on circumstance, rather than ideology.

And the problem with the hard-line positions Liberals and Conservatives take is that they alienate more and more of the people they should be reaching out for.

If I visit a right-wing website and comment on the issue of gay rights, so something equally innocuous, I'm derided as a 'Libtard.' When I go to a Liberal site and point out the flaws in the gun-control issue, I'm labelled a 'neocon Repuke.'

Personally, I think 'bugger the both of them.'


Ann Coulter, that gorgeous but utterly hateful pundit, sums up the opinions of right and left best:

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

Whereas, in reality, the swing voters are really the only ones who are capable of making their minds up for themselves. The Liberals and Conservatives are so blinded by their dreary dogma that they'd support ideas they oppose just to prevent an 'opposition' member getting the edge.

The next presidential election will be won by the man (or woman) who wins over the most swing voters. The likes of Ann Coulter have already disenfranchised themselves by refusing to be more open minded to other people's opinions.

And based on the lies spouted by pundits from both sides of the political spectrum, I know one of the most important values I'll need to see in a potential president will be honesty.

Writing Adventure Stories for Fun and Profit

Nanowrimo is fast approaching and I'm totally at a loss about what to write.

Here I am, a talented [big head - Editorial Bear] young writer with a vivid imagination - but I have no idea what my 50,000 word story will be about - and I'm meant to start writing in a mere seven days.

Last year, I carefully crafted and planned the entire plot beforehand. Now I'm going to be plunging in at the deep end, hoping for the best.

One thing's for certain. It's quite a liberating feeling, knowing that I can write whatever I want. But do I just want to write? Or, like most Nanowrimo'ers, do I want to edge myself closer to publication?

If publishing is my game, I'd better have a plan [a game plan, perhaps? - Editorial Bear.]

That's why I've been giving some thought to what makes a book publishable.

Having married somebody with the attention span of a ferret, I am learning more and more about what makes things successful in the world of writing. It's 'bite' 'hook' and 'edge' that make all the difference. Get the reader hooked in five seconds or less, or they'll move on.

It's sad, but while writing talent is definitely part of the equation, it doesn't top the list of 'things that make people buy books.' That's why I've got to rely on more than my writing talent [talent? - Editorial Bear.]

When publishing companies pick up manuscripts, they first of all look at how marketable the entire package is. They worry more about how many copies they'll sell than the actual quality of the writing. That's where the money is.

Here's a good recent example. Missy Chase Lapine's recent kid's cookbook 'The Sneaky Chef' was passed over by a publisher who then went on to print Jessica Seinfeld's nearly identical 'Deceptively Delicious.'

Both were books about devious ways to encourage kids to eat more healthily (in fact, Jessica's book even contained some of the same recipes as Missy's.) The same books - and Missy's came first. But Jessica brought not just her possibly plagiarised prose to the conference table. She also brought the 'Seinfeld' name - she's the wife of famous New York comedian Jerry Seinfeld.

Celebrity Connections

That familiar name, plus showbiz connections, won an endorsement from Oprah Winfrey. That explains why Deceptively Delicious is zooming up the best seller lists in a way The Sneaky Chef couldn't have hoped to (although it still made it to The New York Times bestseller list.)

Celebrity sells. If you don't believe me, look at the top-five non-fiction hardback bestsellers this week:

• I am America (and so can you!) by Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert (who is also running for Presidential Election.)


• Clapton by Eric Clapton.


• The Age of Turbulence by former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan.


• Celebrity Detox by actress, talk show host and 'professional lesbian' Rosie O'Donnell

Inexplicably beautiful hate monger Ann Coulter's book 'If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans' was nudged off the top five by 'My Grandfather's Son' - a memoir by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas [does being a supreme court justice make you a celebrity? - Editorial Bear]

Getting Buzzed

The other way publishers are increasing sales is by publishing books with 'buzz.'

Books that relate to topical subjects, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Global Warming and related newsworthy topics, invariably get discussed. That talk propagates on the Internet and creates more buzz, while people in book shops pick up the books related to subjects they've heard discussed around the water cooler.

It's Who Reads You

Reviews count.

Oprah Winfrey in America and Richard and Judy in the UK basically control the book industry. The books they elect to review are the ones whisked off the bookshelves by eager sheep [shouldn't this be 'readers' - Editorial Bear.]

But even a small review can help boost sales. It's just a pity that book reviews are slowly being trimmed from national and local newspapers.

Print space discussing books could, in the eyes of most editors, be better used as ad space. Many newspapers, such as The Hampshire Chronicle in Winchester, only deign to have book reviews if their author or subject matter is directly relevant to Winchester or Central Hampshire.

But they still happen. 107.2 WinFM had a wonderful book segment cooked up by presenter Elysa Marsden, in which she interviewed authors like Wilbur Smith and Kate Mosse. Getting a book endorsed on radio or in print is an excellent way to let people hear about it.

Hooked

The most IMPORTANT aspect of putting together a marketable book package, however, has to be the 'hook.' This is the thing that can propel an aspiring author straight to the best seller lists - if only they can get it right.

Just like movie producers have to deliver a 'pitch,' a marketable book has to have something compelling about it that can be summed up in just a few short words.

This is the stuff people will discuss over the water cooler and in their book clubs. These are the things that will grab my wife's ferret-like 'oooh, shiny' attention and get her walking into Barnes and Noble clutching a ten dollar bill [where have you been? You can't get a decent hardback without a mortgage these days - Editorial Bear]

Consider the blurb - and then listen to the pitch - regarding these recent best sellers:

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini - Against a backdrop of tumultuous events, from the fall of the monarchy in Afghanistan through the Soviet invasion, Amir, a well-to-do boy, is haunted by the guilt of betraying his childhood friend Hassan. HOOK: A teenage boy lets his male friend get raped by a Taliban bully - and feels really bad about it.

The Almost Moon by Alice Sebold - Sebold owns the template for writing dazzling openings too compelling to ignore, pulling you into a riptide that won't let go in an incessantly bleak novel of mental illness that leaves nothing to the imagination. HOOK: When a frustrated teacher's 88 year old mother loses bowel control, she murders her, hides her body and then has sex with her neighbour's son.

Into the Wild by Ken Follett - One of the most haunting, unforgettable reads in recent years. Krakauer, whose adventures have taken him to the perilous heights of Everest, explores the seductive, yet often dangerous pull the outdoors. HOOK: Successful college student gives away his car and possessions, hitchhikes into the middle of the Alaskan wilderness and... dies.

Murdering your mother! Letting your best friend get raped! Walking into the Alaskan desert and winding up as a gigantic ice-lolly. Who could FAIL to be hooked by these potent books?

Okay, they're all a bit depressing. But compelling? Oh yes!

Short of being a celebrity or cosying up to Richard and Judy [shudder - Editorial Bear] the best way you can ensure that your book will be a success if by giving it a compelling hook - a brief selling-point that will whet the appetite of even the most cynical reader.

Compelling hooks that involve death, dismemberment, rape and death [didn't we already mention death? - Editorial Bear] are the ideal choices (it's no surprise that W.H. Smiths now has an entire 'Personal Tragedy' section of tragic biographies.) However, if that's all a bit dark and gloomy for you, conspiracy, religion, sex, sex and more sex [you forgot sex - Editorial Bear] are likely to raise the eyebrows and hopefully assist on the journey from bookshelf to checkout.

Look Book

Finally, if all else fails, you could just slap a naked lady on the cover.

As a typical man, I will automatically pick up any book I see that has a naked lady on the cover. The same goes for sports cars, guns, World War II fighter planes [and semi-naked ladies - Editorial Bear.]

Lurid book covers sell books!

Conclusion

When we [who are you talking to? - Editorial Bear] embark on this Nanowrimo madness, we've got something important to consider. What is the hook we're writing about? What's going to grab the reader by the collar and wrench them into our make-believe world?

Over the last few years, I've spent a lot of time writing what I want to write - stories of adventure and excitement featuring Adventure Eddy and his chums. Now it's time to ask myself what a potential audience might want to read - and see if I can make the two meet somewhere in the middle.

I have a million and one additional Adventure Eddy stories I never seem to find time to write - but this time I'm going to invest a month in writing about something else. Something new, exciting and as much of a mystery to me as it will be to my readers [you have readers? Why was I not informed? - Editorial Bear.]

You still have a few days to join me on the Nanowrimo adventure!

Editorial Bear assisted with the editing of this post.