Interview with Nadilyn Beato – Wildlife Illustrator

Nadilyn Beato has established a strong reputation amongst reptile lovers as an extremely talented painter, sculptor and digital illustrator, even attracting the attention of Tomahawk Reptiles to make a sculpture of their logo. She’s also the mastermind behind powerhouse reptile breeder BHB‘s logo, and countless others. She found some time in her busy schedule to answer some questions about herself, her work, and her love of nature’s more exotic animals.

Nadilyn Beato

Firstly, tell us a little about yourself.

My name is Nadilyn Beáto, I’m a 23-year-old New York-based Freelance Illustrator/Designer. I graduated from Parsons School of Design with a Bachelor of Fine Arts with a concentration in Illustration in May of 2012.

How did you get started in art, both personally and professionally?

I’ve been making art since I could get my hands on crayons.  Art is my passion and after I graduated from high school I decided to continue my education doing what I love to do.  I attended Parsons School for Design on a HEOP grant, which stands for Higher Education Opportunity Program.  I started to freelance when I was a sophomore in college.  The government decided to cut TAP grants and I had to take out loans to cover the cost of my tuition.  Attending college full time gave me very little time to find a part time job.  I decided to freelance and I was fortunate enough to get some jobs from people who appreciated my work. I recently graduated last May, and earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts with a concentration in Illustration.

Your website, apart from being incredibly well designed, showcases some astounding work of a range of wonderful and exotic animals. What do you use as a basis for the animals that you don’t have as pets?

For animals that I don’t have as pets I get my reference from a variety of photos.  I used to use several photos for reference when creating a piece.  There are always certain aspects from other photos I like to merge together in my mind to create the final piece.

boa
A boa constrictor pendant
Although you are a wildlife illustrator, a look at your prints and sculptures shows a large body of work focused on reptiles. Compared to the number of people with cats and dogs, reptile ownership is a relatively small niche; was it a conscious decision to focus on that market over other animals?

I mainly focus on reptiles because I own a lot of reptiles.  I feel most people only associate “cute” with soft and furry animals and reptiles are not considered beautiful.  I think this stems from the media and a common misrepresentation of reptiles. Reptiles are beautiful and every time I create a piece I want to immortalize my subject’s beauty for others to appreciate.

Do you prefer doing one over the other, for instance the paintings over the sculptures?

I like doing both equally. It is always fun to switch things up once in while.  I am very grateful I am able to work with a variety of mediums.

A digital illustration
A digital illustration; view the making of in the video below

A look at your Facebook and Instagram pages indicate that much of your work is relatively small – pendants, prints, daily creature drawings etc. Then came the tremendous sculpture commission from Tomahawk Reptiles, of the pied python on the axe, which seemed to be much bigger than your usual work. Do you find such projects daunting,and is there any size job you would refuse?

I actually enjoy working larger.  My Senior Thesis in college was a collection of 6 very large sculptures ranging from 7-12 inches tall.  The biggest I have made was 12 inches tall; I am always open to any bigger commissions.

Nadilyn's sculpture for Tomahawk Reptiles
Nadilyn’s sculpture for Tomahawk Reptiles
Following on from that, what would be your ultimate commission? Would you enjoy being immersed in a project that lasts months, like a huge King Kong on the Empire State, or do you prefer the smaller gigs where you work on a wide range in a short space of time?

My ultimate commission would be maybe a life-sized pet, like a lizard or snake.  I think that would be a great challenge and a fun experience.

gbb
Tarantula pendant
leopardgecko
Leopard Gecko pendant
You’ve drawn, painted and sculpted everything from rats and parrots to lizards and crocodiles, and your pets include tarantulas. Do you have a favourite animal?

That is a tough question.  I really like all animals but if I had to choose one it would be a Tarantula.  I love how unique and interesting they are.  They are gorgeous little creatures misunderstood by society and judged for their appearance instead of the good they do.  They consume a lot of pests in the wild.  They are just adorable little fluffy critters.

ryan_c
Monitor painting
Is there a favourite animal to sketch or sculpt? Are the long shapes of snakes less challenging than a feathered animal or spiky lizard?

My favourite animal to sketch and sculpt would be a snake.  It is always a challenge when it comes to painting the patterns on snakes, but I love challenges.

Chameleon painting
Chameleon painting
Who are your inspirations, in life and for your work?

My inspirations are nature, my pets and Thomas Shahan.  I love his illustrations and macro photography.  He takes macro shots of jumping spiders and I feel that his photos make people appreciate the beauty of those unique little critters.

Where do you hope to be in 10 years’ time?

In 10 years I hope to continue making art and doing what I love to do.  I really want to work for zoos doing anything art related, or work for wildlife conservation organizations creating art for their fundraising campaigns.  In the end anything animal or art related would be awesome.

To view Nadilyn’s work, order her work or put in a custom order:

Website

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

Etsy

Tumblr

Vimeo

Behance

An Interview with Peter Hitchens – Shouting into the Wind

“I didn’t arrange that,” Peter Hitchens blushes.  A stranger has just told him of her appreciation for everything he stands for and, for once, he’s been caught off guard, disarmed by praise.  The stone wall of rhetoric, dogmatic conviction and obduracy against which I’ve been fighting an attritional struggle for the past hour is felled in an instant.  And I can’t help feeling relieved.

We’re in Starbucks showing our solidarity with their tax avoidance – well, Hitchens is.  “I’m a very bad interviewer,” he opens, slipping into the rich baritone of the ‘Hitchens’ voice that so melodiously beguiles and bewitches, “partly because I’m usually more interested in myself than the other person.”  And he has reason to be.  After all, Peter Hitchens is a hell of a lot more interesting than most other people; I’ll give him that.  Columnist and blogger for The Mail on Sunday, author of five books on drugs and God, crime and politics, reporter from more countries than you can count on two hands – it’s a CV that would dwarf most.

But, if you’ll believe him, no one’s taking him seriously.  Never mind, though: the fact that they aren’t will hardly matter soon enough.  Indeed, the world as we know it is preparing for its final curtain call.  This is the end of civilisation according to Peter Hitchens.

Characteristically, Hitchens has been one of the more outspoken commentators on the recent Sandy Hook massacre that has reignited the debate on gun laws in the US.  “People don’t think about anything most of the time,” he notes about the arguments against gun ownership in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, “It’s just intellectually moronic to close your mind to the possibility that something other than guns are at issue.”  He’s thought, he’s decided, and I’m not about to change his mind: “I’m bored by this subject.  If someone produced a gun in here I’d be as scared as the next man – probably more so because I’ve seen what happens when a bullet passes through a human body.  It’s not nice, I’m not in favour of it.”

Hitchens rests his arm over the railing next to our table, as he attempts to deconstruct the myths of gun control.  To him, the reasoning is unsound.  Indeed, until 1920, he maintains, the UK’s very own gun laws “were so lax they made Texas look effeminate.”  And what about the rarely reported knife massacres in China?  Guns aren’t the only things capable of causing havoc, he argues.  “This problem of increasingly frequent gun massacres is new,” Hitchens goes on, “It’s not something that’s been going on during the entire period that the United States has had relaxed gun laws.  In fact, its gun laws have become increasingly restrictive over the past 30 or 40 years.”  His tone is such that it almost caresses me into submission.  Almost.  But I’m not convinced.  Fifteen of the 25 biggest mass shootings worldwide in the last half-century have taken place in the US, a country with double the number of guns per person compared with somewhere like Yemen.  Hardly coincidental, I might suggest.

“It’s theoretically arguable that the existence of law-abiding gun owners in places where people start shooting provides some protection,” Hitchens digresses as I inwardly cringe, noticing the tell-tale signs of the strand of thought with which he’s aligning himself – the NRA honchos and their ‘more guns, fewer shootings’ claptrap.  For someone who prides himself on logic being his weapon of choice, this doesn’t seem awfully logical to me.  “Take the Anders Breivik incident,” he explains, “Had there been anybody on that island in possession of a legally owned gun, a law-abiding sane person, they could have dropped him from 300 paces, and that would have been the end of that.  Good thing, no?”  Well, yes… provided that you haven’t taken into account how many more Anders Breiviks might crop up if guns were readily available.

Yet still his claim is that the problem lies elsewhere: “It’s a case of the old saying,” he recalls, “‘When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.’”  Focusing on guns is a lame distraction.  In the world according to Hitchens, we’d bite the bullet and scrutinise “a scandal as big as thalidomide” much more closely.  Most of these shootings, he’s convinced, have involved anti-depressants or illegal drugs (and sometimes both).  However, “the reason we don’t look there is because it’s fashionable to be against guns and it’s fashionable to be in favour of anti-depressants and marijuana.”  Hitchens takes a gulp of his coffee and shakes his head irately: “Fashion shouldn’t govern thought.”  I couldn’t agree more – but contrariness is fashionable too, I think to myself.

“The anti-depressant scandal is so huge,” and he’s cross with the failure of his trade to report it.  Hitchens carefully explains to me that it’s a “known fact” that the pills induce “suicidality, a tendency to feel suicidal,” but that nobody seems to care: “If people were constantly dying of a physical disease after having taken a pill that was supposed to cure them, the suspicion would be thrown on the efficacy of that pill.” But self-interest shuts the door to examination – on the part of “an awful lot of people in the media” who are taking these drugs, the “huge number of doctors” who prescribe them “out of laziness and a desire to get rid of patients,” and the pharmaceutical companies whose profits keep on soaring.

Hitchens fidgets in his chair slightly, before candidly admitting: “My engagement with the argument about drugs is purely to point out that everybody is talking balls.  I don’t have the slightest illusion that anything I say is going to make a difference.”  It’s the first sign of Hitchens’ distaste for the modern world – and its distaste for him.  “It’s coming, it will come,” he prophesies, “If you’ve read Brave New World, soma [the hallucinogenic consumed ubiquitously in Huxley’s novel] is on its way.”  Illegal drugs, according to Hitchens, have been systematically decriminalised in recent decades by the UK.  He rubbishes my suggestion that Portugal has seen notable successes since decriminalising possession of all drugs in 2001, regarding the Cato Institute’s conclusions as self-serving: “The evidence is that they had an agenda.  Besides, Portugal hasn’t decriminalised to anything like the extent that Britain has,” he explains, swooping up his coffee mug and leaning back once more.

Regulation of the drug market is a cowardly kowtow to the “stupid people that take them,” Hitchens believes.  But what about the tens of thousands of preventable deaths in Mexico, or the Taliban-swelling destruction of Afghanistan’s poppy fields (the only crop that yields its farmers any sort of livelihood)?  “Well, they’re caused by the selfish cretins who encourage the trade.  They’re on their conscience.”  He disputes the idea that decriminalisation would, in one fell swoop, eradicate (or at the very least, significantly reduce) the nefarious effects of just these two examples.  The way I see it, prohibition has been ineffective – it’s changed nothing but the girth of the criminal underbelly.  Peter Hitchens has no time for such arguments, though – indeed, his writings deny the very existence of a policy of ‘prohibition’ in the UK – and he’s not afraid to show his impatience with them: “Oh it’s pathetic, sub-intellectual drivel!  Any thinking person would easily see through it if they were given half a chance, but it’s fed to them as truth,” he complains.

Lazy thinking is a bugbear of Hitchens’, not least when it comes to God.  Which is why I’m a touch surprised that he appears jaded by the conversation when I bring it up: “I’m reduced to repeating things I’ve said over and over again,” he sighs, “It’s a matter of saying that either this is a created universe, and it is therefore the product of a mind in which we live and move and have a purpose that is discoverable, or it’s a meaningless chaos in which nothing we do has any significance.”  Life without faith, for him, is necessarily devoid of meaning and happiness: “You live, you die, it’s over.  There’s no justice, there’s no hope, those who are dead are gone and we have no souls.  Why would you want that?”  The trouble is that Hitchens’ argument smacks of teleology, even though it’s dressed up as rationalism – he wants there to be a meaning, a narrative he can follow with his finger down a page, a universal and unalterable understanding that is discoverable.  Therefore God exists.  Persuaded?

Above all, what religion gives Peter Hitchens is justice and morality.  “I don’t care whether you need him or not,” he expounds in pugnacious style, “Human justice, as we know, is a completely fallible thing.  Yet we all desire justice – I bet you do.  If it isn’t happening in the temporal sphere, there’s only one sphere in which it can take place: the eternal.”  Hitchens believes that a world without religion would substitute morals for ethics.  And we’d be poorer for it: “Ethical codes change all the time.  What’s more, they usually change to suit powerful people who need them to.  But God does not change; justice does not alter.”  My mind wanders momentarily, and I wonder whether he would agree that Henry VIII’s divorce proceedings – on which Hitchens’ Anglicanism was founded – constituted precisely the kind of change to the Church’s morality (at the behest of a very powerful person indeed) that he’s disparaging in the secular world.

There’s no doubt in his mind, though, that the Church of England is in decline.  According to census figures, the percentage of UK citizens classifying themselves as Christian nosedived by 12.4 per cent between 2001 and 2011.  “Christianity has more or less talked itself out of existence,” Hitchens acknowledges, “It lacks confidence and in many cases is espoused and headed by people who don’t really believe in it anyway.” It’s a depressing indictment of his own dearly held faith.  “This will be an Islamic country in 60 or 70 years’ time, I think,” he continues, resting his hands lightly on the table, “When the fundamental religions of modern life – namely, uninterrupted economic growth and an endlessly expanding welfare state – have proved to be false, which they are doing as we speak, there will be a religious revival in the Western countries and Islam is very well placed to take advantage of it.”

A distinct sense of resignation penetrates nearly everything Hitchens says.  He appears to see himself as a modern-day Cassandra, shouting truth into the wind whilst everybody else’s back is turned.  There’s a certain earnestness in his voice when he laments that he has “absolutely no influence over the politics of this country.  Maybe you do,” he offers.  “The existing political system is incredibly intolerant of dissent.  And it keeps me out,” he notes as though he’s living in 1984, but still he keeps fighting his corner, “I’m treated as a sort of licensed lunatic.  Nobody reads my books; nobody listens to anything I say.  All I can say is that I’ve tried.”

And just when I think we’ve reached the nadir of this conversation, he hits back with a sucker punch: “The jig is up, the country’s finished, Western civilisation’s over.  It’ll be the Chinese writing the history of this place.”  His advice?  Emigrate: “If I were you, I’d leave tomorrow.  But I’m too old, I couldn’t make a living abroad now.  I’m stuck.”  He tells me how he’d board the first plane to Canada, because “it’s a sensible, well-governed place and its people have a good sense of humour.”  But that does nothing to take away the sour taste of his doom and gloom end of days story.  “We’re watching the end of an ancient and once rather wonderful civilisation,” he meditates wistfully, “You’re watching the end of it.  It’s how these things go – neither with a bang nor with a whimper, but with the country sinking giggling into the sea.”

At length, we get up to leave.  Maybe it was something in the coffee, but I felt sure I’d walked into Starbucks feeling about five feet taller than I did now.  We shake hands, and I watch as he flings a scarf over his shoulder and strolls back to another day at the office, another day in the world of Peter Hitchens.  It’s all well and good, but the trouble is that I’m not quite sure the world that Hitchens thinks he lives in really exists.  At least, I hope it doesn’t.

Interview: C J Stone

C J Stone is something of a literary heavyweight, with four books under his belt and former columns in such media outlets as the Guardian and Mixmag. So it with great pleasure that we welcome him to The Daily Opinion, where Lizzie Wright puts him under the spotlight. You can also read her review of The Trials of Arthur here.

 

What made you and Arthur decide to write this book and what did you hope to achieve with it?

I’d wanted to write a book about Arthur ever since I first heard about him in 1996. It seemed such an unlikely and at the same time inspiring tale. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to get a book deal for the project then. However, in 1999 I had just started to write a book about the protest movement of the time, and approached HarperCollins with the idea. It just so happened that Arthur had also approached HarperCollins and, as the editor already knew of my work, she decided to ask me to complete Arthur’s book for him. This was the origin of the book, The Trials of Arthur: The Life and Times of a Modern Day King originally published by Thorsons/Element (an imprint of HarperCollins) in 2003. The Trials of Arthur: Revised Edition, which you are reviewing here, is a heavily rewritten version of that book.

Arthur and I met the editor, Louise McNamara in September 1999 and we discussed what we wanted to get out of the project then. Arthur described it in these words: “If I can do it, anyone can!” In a sense you can take this as the motto. If some dysfunctional kid from a council estate can transform himself in such a memorable and dramatic way and make a real difference to the world, then so can any one else. Thus it is a book about someone writing their own story in life and making it come true.

For me the initial project remains. It is still a book – perhaps THE definitive book – about the protest movement of the 1990s, but using Arthur’s story as the thread around which everything else is woven. So it contains, amongst other things, the history of the road protest movement, the history of the Stonehenge campaign, the history of Reclaim the Streets and the history of the various mobilisations against the Criminal Justice Act in 1995 & 1996. It also includes a history of the neo-pagan movement, and a history of bikers, plus there’s a bit of my own history too, of how I came to meet Arthur.

 

You’ve written in a tone that makes the book accessible to anyone, but who was your initial target audience?

We wanted the book to be accessible to anyone, and while we had a core audience in mind (protesters, pagans, druids, bikers, hippies, and anyone interested in alternative culture) we also wanted it to be read by the general population. It’s a book about changing the world, but the world will never change until everyone gets involved.

 

Was there anything that you left out from either your or Arthur’s life that you would have loved to include?

The book ends in the year 2000 with public access to the Stonehenge monument having been reinstated, so anything that has happened since then is missing. Obviously Arthur hasn’t stopped there, and there have been many campaigns since, but the book would never have ended and the 2000 cut off date seemed appropriate. Also Arthur and I had many adventures during the writing of the book which never made it in to the final text: like the time we went to the Faslane Peace Camp near Glasgow with Mog Ur Kreb Dragonrider and met a man who thinks he’s John the Baptist and Arthur got himself arrested, or the time when I ended up sleeping in a bin outside Countess Services near Amesbury.

You can read those stories here: http://christopherjamesstone.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/the-trials-of-arthur-revised-edition-is-a-brand-new-book/

 

The overall tone is one of joy and contentment. Did you have to change your view of more painful events to maintain this tone?

It’s interesting you should use the words “joy and contentment” to describe the tone of the book. I’m not sure that was the intention. Certainly it is a very funny book in places. You couldn’t go round in a white dress calling yourself King Arthur without arousing plenty of laughter. That is one of Arthur’s greatest traits, his ability to laugh at himself. Without it you would inevitably have dismissed him as a loony. The joy of the book – which I agree is there – is in its unwavering commitment to challenging the forces of repression. Standing up for what is right, although it is hard at times, always leads to a feeling of joy. But “contentment”? I’ll accept that it is there as you have felt it, but I can only explain it as the inevitable consequence of the writer, me, doing what he loves the most, i.e. writing. As for painful events, well there were many, of course, but being able to laugh at them is one of our human characteristics and I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t like to have a laugh.

 

What was the writing process like? Did you and Arthur reminisce as you wrote or was there a strict outline that you followed?

It was quite hard at first trying to get an effective working method, and the book took much longer to write than either Arthur or I had expected (much to Arthur’s frustration at times). We decided to use the first person plural (“we”) as the narrative voice at an early meeting, and later Arthur came down to my home town and we worked out the structure of the book between us. After that I would ring Arthur up and we would have long conversations during which I would take notes. At other times I would set Arthur writing tasks, getting him to describe certain people or certain events in his own words, so there is a lot of Arthur’s own writing embedded in the text. There are also two complete chapters that are entirely Arthur’s, and no part of the book went ahead without us discussing it and agreeing on it. Arthur says now that we had many arguments during the writing of the book, and I guess this is true, but in the end we worked together remarkably well I think, considering that we are both complete egotists.

 

Although you portray the world of King Arthur through very understanding eyes, did you come across many sceptics who could not understand it?

You’ll see from the above link that I had a lot of trouble with this. It wasn’t people’s scepticism that worried me (I’m a professional sceptic myself) it was their downright hostility. One of my main antagonists during the writing of the book, who made it a personal quest to ridicule the whole project, died of alcohol poisoning in the Philippines, so you have to ask which of us had more of a grip on reality. Also, as I’ve often pointed out, if you look at the state of our current world, and then compare that to what Arthur is doing, which would you judge to be the sanest and most down-to-earth? I know which one I would choose.

 

The world of The Trials of Arthur is very different and more restrictive today. What would your advice be to young adults reading your book?

Is the world more restrictive today? Yes, you might be right. But that’s the point about Arthur and me, we never took those restrictions as inevitable. My advice is to follow Arthur’s philosophy and to “go for it”. Remember, the restrictions that are placed upon you are man-made and can always be challenged. That is Arthur’s lesson. One of the stories he likes to tell is the one about the custody sergeant at Salisbury gaol. Every year from 1990 till 2000 Arthur would step through the four mile exclusion zone which the powers-that-be had placed around Stonehenge on the solstice and get himself arrested. He was taking on the British government, the police, the law, the landowners, the entire might of the British establishment. So every year he would end up in Salisbury nick, and every year the custody sergeant would say, “you’ll never win you know Arthur,” and Arthur would say, “you just wait and see whether I win or not.” Well we all know now who was right now that open access to Stonehenge has been reinstated and Arthur no longer has to spend solstice night in Salisbury gaol. Let that be the lesson. Never give up. You may not always win, but, as sure as damn it, if you do give up you will be certain to lose.

 

Yours and Arthur’s journeys are far from finished. Will there be another book about them?

Arthur and I will always be friends, and, no doubt, there will be other writing projects involving him in the future, but, for now I’d like to say that this particular project is finished. It was started in 1999 and the first version of the book came out on 2003, but I was never happy with the result. I only really completed the book to my satisfaction in 2012, so it has been a long hard haul. Thirteen years of hard labour. I’m happy with the end result – I can honestly say it’s a great book – but I really need to move on now.

 

Writing has obviously been a major part of your life. Who are your literary influences?

There are many, but, just to name a few: William Golding, particularly an obscure but fascinating book called Free Fall, which came out in 1959. I’ve reread it several times and I would recommend it to anyone. After that it was Kurt Vonnegut, whose style I have flagrantly stolen. If you want to know what a good book should read like, then you couldn’t do better than taking a look at Kurt Vonnegut. After that it was Robert Anton Wilson who wrote the Cosmic Trigger trilogy, and Prometheus Rising, both of which I would recommend. I also like the historians, EP Thompson, Christopher Hill and Eric Hobsbawn, but my most consistent influence has to be William Blake, particularly the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, which I’ve read and reread countless times, and which still offers new insights every time I look into it. You have to read the facsimile edition, however, to get the best out of it. It was designed as a work of art, and you need to look at the images as well reading the words. It is a book whose central meaning will never die.

“Being Gay is Disgusting” An Interview with Author Edward Falzon

The following interview was originally printed in Freethinker magazine, and has been kindly permitted to be reproduced here.

——————-

The Christian right are always quick to cite the Bible when opposing gay marriage, claiming their bigotry is a reflection of God’s will. But how well do they actually know their “holy” book? Are they aware that the same book also advocates human sacrifices or that, as well as condemning homosexuals, it bans cross-breeding animals and wearing clothes made from multiple types of thread?
In Being Gay is Disgusting, Edward Falzon argues that religious fundamentalists are cherry picking which parts of the Bible they follow to suit their own prejudices. He points out that the god of the Bible displays a moral code that is at odds with that of most modern day Christians and draws attention to the parts of the so-called “good book” that nobody who isn’t a complete psychopath could possibly follow. Being Gay is Disgusting lays the Bible bare and pokes fun at some of its less ethically commandments. I caught up with Edward to find out the inside story of this controversial yet highly necessary book.

RS: What inspired you to write Being Gay is Disgusting?
EF: Many years ago, I became curious about the contents of the biblical books – not from a spiritual “I’m looking for answers” perspective but rather an intellectual curiosity. I began to read a Bible and immediately fell asleep. I had discovered why even Christian websites admit that over 90 percent of Christians haven’t read it; it’s long, it’s boring and it’s repetitive. Incidentally, I never use a capital for “bible” any more. It’s not like there’s only one of them; there are countless translations, leaning towards whatever ideology the translators desire, so “bible” has very much become a noun.

RS: Your book sheds light on disturbing parts of the Bible that most Christians probably don’t know exist. Do you think that Christianity’s popularity is partly down to its followers’ lack of familiarity with the book?
EF: Absolutely. In fact during the “Biblical Morality Tour” that I’m doing now, I’ve spoken several times on the subject of Christians not following their own bibles. Not only that, but they wouldn’t follow some biblical directives if Jesus himself were standing next to them holding a crucifix to their heads. They think they’re following the bible in their morality and lifestyle but they simply aren’t. That’s what I try to discuss with Christians and I want to encourage them not to follow [the] Bible any more than they are now.

RS: Can you say a little bit about the tour that you’re doing?
EF: I’m presently travelling throughout North America giving speeches, primarily on biblical morality. I’d prefer debates but ministers and theologians are yet to step up and share the stage.
The Secular Student Alliance has been very supportive, with several student groups booking me to speak on campus. Many groups connected to the Center For Inquiry have also invited me to speak. It has been great meeting so many atheist and secular people who are as concerned for civilisation as I am.
My expat friends in Shanghai, where I’ve lived for four years, aren’t really aware of the constant and seemingly accelerating encroachment of religion into politics, education and law. I want to do my part to stop that, and so I’m on tour, speaking to anyone who wants to listen.

RS: As well as being informative and insightful, your book is also laugh out loud funny in places. How important a tool do you think humour is in the fight against hateful religions such as Christianity?
EF: I think humour is crucial. It’s perfectly okay to ridicule the ridiculous. People have been misled – not since the last election, not even their whole lives, but for literally millennia. They don’t realise it, so taking what they have perceived to be solemn and true all their lives and delivering it as an insightful punch line has the effect of helping them to see how silly these notions are. In some cases, it can even snap someone out of religion entirely.

RS: Have you received much opposition to the book from Christians/religious types?
EF: The only opposition I’ve encountered so far is people saying that Being Gay is Disgusting only covers the Old Testament, which Christians say isn’t as relevant as the New Testament.
Of course Original Sin, from which Jesus is said to have come to absolve us, all the commandments, which Jesus is said to have come to uphold, and the prophecies of Jesus’ coming, which Jesus is said to have fulfilled, are all in the Old Testament. No one would have been on the lookout for Jesus if the Old Testament didn’t exist.
The OT also accounts for 80 per cent of the content and ninety-five per cent of the timeline of any Bible, so to disregard it is to disregard most of one’s owner’s manual. Other than that, there has been a small amount of opposition on “moral” grounds, but for the most part, even Christians have been positive about this book, acknowledging that it’s okay to laugh at the silly parts of the Bible.

RS: What would you say is the most disturbing part of the Bible that you discovered whilst writing your book?
EF: It’s hard to pick just one, since it seems that any minor transgression comes with a death penalty, which is pretty damn disturbing. Of course, above that would be the transgressions that were not specified as wrong but which resulted in death anyway.
Lot’s wife comes to mind. All the angel said was “run for the hills and don’t look back.” Apparently he meant that literally because when the missus looked back, she was killed by being turned into a pillar of salt.
But I think the most disturbing story might be the one of Jephthah in Judges 11. He makes a deal with Yahweh that if he wins in the upcoming battle, he’ll sacrifice whatever first comes out of his gates to greet him when he gets home. He wins the war, heads home and his daughter come out of the gates. He’s sad but still goes ahead and sacrifices her on the altar. There’s better morality in Mein Kampf.

RS: Why do you think some Christians are so obsessed with homosexuality?
EF: Because they’re trained from the pulpit to be bigots and taught only to read the “happy” parts of the bible. They don’t realise that something as random as Yahweh liking the smell of burning fat is mentioned more often than homosexuality.

RS: How has Being Gay is Disgusting been received by the gay community?
EF: Extremely positively. I was very gratified to see reviews come in from South Florida Gay News, Out in Jersey, Out in Perth and so on. Actually I think most of my reviews have been from gay mags and every single one was extraordinarily supportive.

RS: You have previously stated that you were raised in a Catholic household. When did the turning point come where you realised that the Bible probably wasn’t true?
EF: Actually that was only once I started reading it a few years ago. As a Catholic kid, I was never given a Bible to read; I was just told that Jesus totally loves me and Hell is a bad place.
After prepping myself with multiple shots of Red Bull and Jolt Cola and sticking toothpicks in my eyelids, I began reading through it from page one. But there’s the problem; page one is just objectively wrong. It asserts that the moon is a source of light, that the sun is inside the sky of earth, above which there is water stored for rain, and that the stars are there purely to remind us of the seasons.
I also delved into archaeology to find out the accuracy of the Bible’s historical claims. It didn’t go in favour of the biblical account. Archaeologists have found less than nothing to support the biblical account, by which I mean they’ve not only found nothing in support of it but also an abundance of evidence against it. The Old Testament biblical accounts, at least in the books of Moses, are entirely, inescapably untrue.

RS: You have criticised the Bible’s effect on children, stating that growing up in a household run by religious fundamentalists can jeopardise a child’s well-being. Can you elaborate on this?
EF: Though most households, Christian or otherwise, make the safety and well-being of their kids the highest priority, many fundamentalist families have allowed their children to die rather than take them to those Satan-inspired hospitals. Mothers have drowned or even stoned their own children because they’ve sincerely believed that Yahweh and/or Jesus told them to. A quick search on CNN, BBC or Huffington Post will show story after story.

RS: Finally, do you have any more books on the cards and what can we expect from you throughout the years to come?
EF: My Biblical Morality series is a pentalogy that began with Being Gay is Disgusting. I’m now writing the fifth volume, which will be about the whole New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation. The title is Women Should Shut Up and Listen. It’ll be out just as soon as I’ve finished it. Then I’ll write the three in the middle.
Phase one of my tour covers the Pacific and Midwest states of the USA and the southwestern provinces of Canada. I’d like to get enough interest to be able to do phases two and three, which will take me to Southeast Canada, the northeast states of the USA, the southern states and the West. I’d like to be on tour until next year but this depends on how long my budget and sanity hold out.
I’ve also started blogging on the Huffington Post at www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-falzon so that’s a great place to keep up with what pisses me off in current affairs. I’m gradually developing a YouTube channel for the enjoyment and ridicule of netizens everywhere, which you can find at www.youtube.com/edwardfalzon. Naturally, I also do the whole Twitter and Facebook things so follow me at @edwardfalzon and add me at www.facebook.com/edwardfalzon.

Interview with Damaged Goods Author Alexandra Allred

We had the pleasure of doing both a review and interview with Alexandra. You can check out the review here, and read on for the interview.

It is quite a brave thing to open a novel with the appearance of a blood-soaked tampon. At any point did you worry that it would put readers off? Or did you feel that the right reader for this book would not be shaken by a bit of blood?

I still worry about it!! And, yes, I’ve had people tell me they were a bit shocked with that opening but it has a purpose.  There is a very specific reason for that opening. . . I mean, besides being disgusting.

Pollution and environmental issues are clearly very important to you and the book depicts some quite harrowing consequences of pollution. Do you think that Damaged Goods will be an eye-opener for many people and increase awareness?

This is my dream.  This is what I want more than anything.  When The Writer’s Coffee Shop accepted my manuscript, I sent them a note thanking them … not as an author but as a mother and concerned (scared) citizen.  It means so much to me to get this story out and make people realize what is happening to our own communities, our children!  It’s crazy.  I’ve lived all over the world and I would never have imagined that cranking out cancer causing chemicals, DNA changing agents would be allowable in this country.  It blows my mind.

The support of a strong group of women is very important for Joanna and Brianna in particular. Was this friendship an aim from the start, or did it develop as you started writing?

That is such a great question!  I knew that Joanna would find friends but I never imagined the kind of bond they would form.  These women love and adore each other.  I had so much fun with them and was actually sad when it was all over.

Rape and domestic abuse are among some of the issues that are covered. At any point did you worry that you were including too many difficult issues in the story and how did you fit them together so that they weren’t overwhelming?

Ohhhhh, baby!  Welcome to my town.  This is real life.  You know, I always tell people that when I read a book and there are only four or five characters and one theme, it doesn’t feel real to me.  Not real life.  Think about your own life.  You know so many different people with so many different issues going on in their lives.  Yes, it can be overwhelming.  LIFE can be overwhelming.  I have gay and straight friends, a family friend going through chemo, another friend who has an abusive husband (and I secretly plot when I can don my ninja suit and beat the crap out of him in a parking lot one day), teenager issues with one daughter and hormones kicking in for my son.  My horse is going through rehab and I have a starving kitten I’m trying to befriend and I’m only getting started. I think my life is pretty nutty until I go into town and one of my students (at the gym) tells me her mom was arrested last night.  What?!?  There is no other way to portray a small, kooky town but to expose all of its chaos and glory.

Each of the women in the friendship group has a very strong personality, but you didn’t write from the perspective of all of them. How did you choose which of the women to write through and why?

Ahh! Another great question.  Joanna was easy.  As the new person in town, she was used to highlight the chaos.  It was overwhelming for her.  To the others, it was just another day in Marcus but for Joanna, the beer-swilling emu, the health threat, the illegal immigrants and prejudice, the small town politics and the madness of Jeanie Archer were shocking.  Suzette’s character is very dear to me as she is a real person.  Much of what you read about Suzette is true and so when I began to write, she just popped out in the first person.  I knew of no other way to present her.  And Dixie is sort of the straight man – pardon the expression – to Jeanie.  These women balanced everyone and everything around them.

You’ve created a lot of complex and over-lapping conflicts in the book. Did you find it hard to write them without confusing the reader?

ALL PRAISE THE EDITING STAFF OF TWCS!! Yes!  I had to make notes to myself to keep track of people and even then I would get emails from the editors asking me what in the blue blazes I was doing.  I HAVE NO IDEA! ARGHHH! MARCUS IS A MADHOUSE! You can never have a doctor, a dentist or an editor that is too good.

Throughout the story I was keen to keep turning the page. What is your favourite technique for keeping the reader hooked?

Lots and lots of coffee.  No. Seriously, my characters just took over.  Because much is based on real life and real people, I was often just swept into their world.

Where do you find the inspiration for the wild characters you create, such as the one-legged big cat lover and the stripper-turned-Mormon?

I know them!!!

The ending of the story is left open. Will there be a sequel?

This is the best question ever.  Yes.  I would very much like there to be a sequel because, like in real life, this fight is far from over.  I would love for there to be a sequel in which my characters could live through a resolution.  But it is far more likely that my characters will be engaging in yet another battle.  And like the women I know in real life … they don’t give up easily.

An Interview With Bridie Jackson

<!–
google_ad_client = “ca-pub-6469969007044671”;
/* Anne Iredale */
google_ad_slot = “4931800784”;
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 90;
//–>

Bridie Jackson is the full package. A gifted writer of melody and lyrics and an accomplished musician and vocalist, her image would not look out of place in a Pre-Raphaelite painting. Following a recent period of extensive touring, the rest of Britain is discovering what her native North East already knew – that she is an original talent, both in the recording studio and in live performance.

Her band, known as The Arbour, is no mere backing band.

They supply excellent musical accompaniment and delicious harmonies and it really is a group enterprise. The band’s use of bell plates has entered local folklore. They look like something you’d use to scrape the frost off your windscreen, but they make the most wonderful sound.

Bridie is the very opposite of a precious diva. She likes to kick off her shoes when on stage and draw the audience in. I met up with her to pose some questions and shoot the breeze…

Bridie, it’s great to have this chat. I was in the audience on the night your album, Bitter Lullabies, was launched at The Sage in Gateshead and there was a lot of love in the room for you. How has the album been received since then?

It’s been going rather well. We’ve had some great reviews, quite a bit of radio play and the opportunity to gig a lot around the UK, which has been great. We really enjoy performing to new audiences, as it’s a clearer reflection of what people make of you than if the venue is full of people who know you and are going to be nice regardless!

Music journalists like to categorize new artists that come along. For example, ‘Chamber Folk’ seems to be the buzz genre right now. Do you welcome a label or do you dislike it and how would you describe your music?

I think labels are fine, as they generally come from people trying to fathom something out and through a desire to explain it to others. I’m not sure we fit into any label very comfortably though, which must be a bit frustrating I suppose. As for how we describe our own music, I still don’t have the faintest idea. Free album to whoever can come up with something that covers it!

You’ve been compared to Fleet Foxes and Joanna Newsom. Are you flattered by comparisons or do they irritate you?

It depends on the comparison! I know some artists think comparisons are a result of lazy journalism, which I suppose it can be, but I think if done accurately, they can make your music more accessible, which can only be a good thing.

You’ve been doing a lot of gigs, Bridie. With all the travelling and performing, do you find it difficult to find time to write?

In some ways, touring is a really good space to write, as generally there are large chunks in the day when you’re not that busy, so you can really focus on getting things done.

I’m interested in your writing process. Do you have a routine approach or does it depend on your mood and circumstances at the time?

The only proper routine is making sure the ideas get ‘caught’ and archived properly when I have them. The actual creation is rather erratic and it can take months, even years to complete anything. It can often feel like the song isn’t all that much to do with me sometimes. I just have to wait for enough ideas to plop out so that I can actually write the whole thing. However, I’m always working on something and tend to be fairly dogged until it’s completed. Also, even if I have no inspiration whatsoever, I’ll still write most days, even if it’s just daft songs about dual carriageways and stuff… just to keep in the discipline of doing it I suppose.

Would it excite you to write with other people or do you prefer to write alone?

I generally write alone although I’m currently involved in a project called Riverrruns, which involves collaborating with other writers, mostly poets, and it’s been wonderful – a complete revelation, so I would definitely consider doing it again, for specific projects.

Some songwriters find writing lyrics a cathartic exercise. Do you share this feeling and do they serve to document your life?

Sometimes the songs document life events and they are frequently cathartic. The great thing about a song is you get to whinge on and it takes longer for people to tire of hearing it, which is handy.

It’s easier than ever to distribute songs and engage with fans. Do you think today’s artists have the best deal or do you hanker back to being an artist in the simpler days of the 1960s and 1970s?

It definitely assists the grassroots movement and allows artists to operate more independently, which is a very positive thing, so mostly, I’m in favour.

You and the band are certainly in harmony when on stage. What’s the dynamic like when you’re all hurtling down the motorway on a cold, wet morning after a few hours’ sleep?

I think bands on tour sometimes develop a bit of a ‘family on holiday’ dynamic, complete with ensuing social dysfunction, but we get on really rather well. I think in the last few months we’ve got very good at knowing when one or the other of us needs a bit of space, or support, etc., and as a result, it’s very harmonious. No gossip there. Boring I suppose…

Okay, Bridie, to wrap up, this is one of those job interview questions, but where do you see yourself in five years’ time?

On Desert Island Discs please! Or maybe that’s more a ten-year aim….

If this interesting insight into the life of a musician has whetted your appetite, check out Bridie Jackson & The Arbour’s album. Kick your shoes off, turn the lights down and see what happens…

For more information on Bridie Jackson, check out the Tumblr page.