Mine is a story of unwanted responsibility and sacrifice due to a tragedy nobody foresaw. Felicity Brimley-Smythe ruined my life. Through the combination of a reckless act, and an old promise, everything I knew lay in ruins around me. Could I survive and keep my word? Could I do my duty? Could I maintain the necessary standards? Come and judge for yourself, and help me decide my next step...

Buy Standards and Duty on Amazon, now.

See below for FAQ and comments.

Frequently asked questions/statements:

Hiya!  

Below are some of the questions and comments – and my replies – which I’ve had since people have read the book.  I hope you enjoy reading them, and if you have any of your own, please feel free to contact me and I’ll add them in.  

WARNING: There are spoilers below – only read this section when you’ve read the book, if you don’t like surprises. I’ve tried to keep the spoilers mostly towards the end of the page, so that you don’t have to scroll down that far.  

 1.        Why is the writing so formal? 

 Mimi is a middle class, British woman, with aspirations of grandeur.  Think Margo Leadbetter but younger and slightly more modern.   Of course she’s formal, she couldn’t possibly be anything else!  Hence, there are no contractions in the book, no “don’t” or “won’t” or “couldn’t” or “shouldn’ts” appear anywhere; this is why there are such detailed descriptions and an upper-middle class dialect.  This was only softened when she became a mother figure and was influenced by a teenager.  It’s the same reason why, before she was married, she referred to “Michael and I” separately, rather than as a “we”. That, and perhaps she knew, even then, that he wasn’t the one for her?  There are other nuances of language in the book, but I’ll let you discover those for yourself! 

2.      Is the book based on something or someone you know? 

I get asked this a lot, and the short answer is: no.  I’d had a “what if” scenario in my head, with a real, flawed, character at its centre.  I don’t like “perfect” characters.  I think for a reader to connect with, or form an opinion of, a character, their personality has to be real enough and flaws are the way to do that.  Even though she’s the protagonist, she doesn’t have to be entirely liked… there are even points where she can absolutely be classified as a bitch.  Because nobody’s perfect – and she certainly isn’t!  

3.      The book has left me cross with the main character!

 Good!  Being cross with her is a good thing; there’s nothing worse for an author than someone putting your book down after reading it and saying, “meh”.  Lingering emotions, positive or negative, are what writers aim to create in their readers; if you can do this, you know you’ve created a provocative discourse which has been thoroughly entered into by the reader.  Success! 

4.      I don’t know if I’ve forgotten, but I don’t remember what she looks like.

 Good!  That’s the point – she can look like whatever the reader thinks she looks like.  It’s specifically ambiguous (what an oxymoron!) so that the reader does the deciding, or relating.  That’s also why there’s not much dialogue. 

5.      Why did you decide not to use much dialogue? 

I know a lot of people think that this might be considered lazy writing, but what it creates is a discourse; the reader fills in the conversation and each reader has a different interpretation.  They decide what each character says, and attributes individual sayings to them all, so the more a reader puts into knowing the characters, the more they get out of the book. Each reader gets differing levels of depth in the conversations.  That way, the read is unique to you.  The lack of dialogue is because she’s recounting the story to you, talking to you directly; it’s conversational.   Or that’s the idea, anyway.

6.      Why was there no definitive outcome? 

*SPOILER ALERT*    

That’s the whole point – much like the lack of dialogue.  It’s to make the reader wonder and form an opinion.  Far too many texts involve passive reading, and I’ve blogged about something similar before; I set out to create a book which forced the reader into making decisions, being active, and knowing the characters through their own participation.  I wanted the structure to be cyclical, which it is, so that the conversational style was appropriate. Mimi directly addresses the reader at the beginning to either make them agree that she had no other choice, and for them to sympathise, or for them to be infuriated and want to suggest alternatives to her choices, thereby causing them to be active in their discourse.  She’s a flawed character, making her more relatable and less “perfect” or “liked” – it’s perfectly acceptable to find her irritating!   I crafted her to be annoying, to make mistakes, to be imperfect, yet want to be better.  The fact that you’re asking questions, now, and potentially have a theory of her outcome, means it’s worked!