Funny old world...

About ten days after I posted last I got an email from the agent whom I really wanted to represent me. She gave me some really good feedback; said that she thought I was a very good writer, that I had an excellent USP for my book and all sorts of other flattering stuff.

She went on to say, however, that she really didn't like my central character, finding her too selfish to be sympathetic, she found the fact that I dart around in time and between voices without waving enough flags confusing and that I should head up each chapter with time and person. She said that she was therefore going to pass on the book but if I changed it substantially in accordance with these considerations she would look at it again. That was on Friday and I was really disappointed. Contrary to my normal practice I didn't respond immediately and spent some time wondering whether a) I should do as she suggested or b) explain myself or c) gracefully thank her for her feedback and move on.

I thought about it on a lot of long icy dog-walks and I concluded that I didn't want to change the book as she suggested. I also decided that there was no point in getting back to her.

But I couldn't help myself, so I emailed her back and described why I didn't feel I could make the changes she suggested. I explained why, perhaps misguidedly, I had deliberately chosen to write the book in the way that I had. I pointed to the chapter which held the key to the whole thing, structurally and thematically. I thought I sounded like a disappointed child, but I couldn't stop myself. Then I told her about my new project, outlined it briefly and asked her if she'd like to see it when it was finished.

Then I forgot about it.

And later that night she emailed me back, said that she'd reread the first few chapters and decided that actually it was very good, and "hey - let's go for it". She'd take me on and represent the book as it was, unrevised! (If no one had jumped in in the interim... as if!!)

I actually jumped up and down and screamed. I scared the dogs and the kids. And then I said 'yes, please!' She sent me a formal offer and I signed and sent it back. And now I am represented! I have an agent. I can say "my agent". I am unreasonably happy! I have just been away skiing and realised that I haven't the faintest idea what happens next. But I'm calling her tomorrow to have a chat and hopefully arrange to meet.

Maybe it is true that the darkest hour is just before the dawn.

Just because it's 'unacceptable'

... doesn't mean it's not true.

I started this a while back - just finihsed it...couple of years on. True now as it was then though.

A drugs adviser said that people were more likely to incur damage to their bodies by horseriding than by taking ecstasy. Jacqui Smith is "surprised" and "disappointed" by this assertion and there have been the inevitable calls for his resignation.

I have always been quite an advocate of Political Correctness. I think it's a good thing to think about the offence which might be caused someone before you say something, and when it's good PC is what used to be called courtesy.

But now we seem to have veered away from that to the idea that there is only one way to think and anyone who deviates from that line should be ceremonially hund drawn and quartered, or at the very least called upon to resign.

This seems most prevalent in the area of drugs. It seems to me absolutely nuts to go wildly overboard about the dangers of drugs. The further adrift adults' warnings about drugs are from young people's experiences and first hand observations, the less effective they will be. If you're going to give people information, don't assume that your audience are stupid - tell the truth.

I don't know too much about all this, and I had more opportunity to learn about it than most as as a part of my teacher training I went to spend a few day with a drugs adviser at a drugs centre

Yes, drugs are fun. If they weren't no bugger would do them. Duh!

No, odd cases aside, it is highly unlikely that you will be adversely affected by smoking a small amount of spliff, although it's probably best to avoid stronger strains (is it still called skunk? I'm out of date now...) because there is a sizeable minority of people who will can suffer significant and irreversible psychological damage. Most kids know other kids who smoke weed, and they observe no harm, so for a government to wave its arms around and proclaim that the sky is falling will make those kids sit back and say "They don't now what they're on about - it's all lies." They WILL NOT put the government's counsel above their prsonal experience. It's just not what teenagers do.

There are no consumer guidelines on the production of Ecstasy and the like, which can be cut with all sorts of other stuff, so if you don't fancy ingesting raw flour or bicarbonate of soda or plaster of paris on your night off, it's probably best avoided.

And obviously if you have the smallest modicum of self-respect and self-preservation don't assume that you'll beat the odds on opiates. Some people can do them and get away with it but many will get into some level of difficulty. Anything which can result in fairly hefty addiction is best avoided - it's why I've drummed into my children the necessity of not having that first ever cigarette.

But don't pretend that the first time any drug is ingested the pavements of the world will open aup and spew forth demons.

Possibly one of the attractions of drugs for young people is the fact that politicians with serious, uncool suits and serious, humourless, uncool faces keep telling them not to go there. I suggest the war on drugs would be better fought by some reasonably credible people pouring scorn on the whole things and pointing up the grubbiness, chavviness and boringness of the whole thing. Also point out that this generation didn't discover it and the whole business of drug-taking, frankly, is a bit of a yawn.

Start actually trying to confront the thing and do the job of directing kids away from drugs rather than aiming to win votes from their scared parents.