Month: September 2010

The Self-Publishing Storm

First off, I would like to make it VERY clear that I am a rank amateur. I have had books published by no mainstream, small or independent press or any combination thereof. My only published work is on this blog, and whether that counts as published or not seems to be entirely subjective. So while I am offering my tuppence-worth on the self-publishing debate, they are completely my own limited observations and I’m happy to not only hear other points of view in the comments but to have more knowledgeable people than me put me straight.

To be honest, this post comes from some comments and follow up posts on Jane Smith’s blog, How Publishing Really Works, and more specifically, this post which was part of a series rebutting what seems to me to have been a grossly misguided hymn to self-publishing. I do pity the man who wrote the original article, as Jane refutes his points ruthlessly over the series, but it disappoints me that so much of her very fair and informed response has been misunderstood and blown up into a storm rather than a debate on a very topical subject.

There are many points raised in the comments, and I’m not going to go through them as Jane does a much better job of responding than I could. One of the ones that really stood out for me, though, was an assertion that Jane seemed determined to review self-published books with the sole aim of proving that they are all rubbish. It’s very disappointing that someone can go to the trouble of reading, reviewing and blogging about books that the average reader will not come across in an effort to find beautiful writing, just to have someone with their own axe to grind write off those efforts as, effectively, worse than worthless. As far as I can see, self-published writers fall into two camps – the minority, who are genuinely excellent writers but for one reason or another do not have a commercially-attractive work and turn to self-publishing this particular piece, whilst in the meantime continuing to write until they do have a piece for which publishers can see a market; and the majority who have taken little feedback or criticism and having fallen at the first few hurdles decide to do it themselves. The reason I’m making this differentiation is the very small sample I’ve seen – the first camp take care to produce their book as professionally as possible and do not have a view of publishers or agents as a Mafia-like force, determined to keep real talent beaten down in the name of profit. The second, well, often do have this view, and in general their books are, as Jane says, not good enough (by any criteria).

I think a problem arises when people put publishers on some sort of pedestal. A few of the comments talk about the need (or not) for publishers to educate the public and provide worthy books instead of chasing sales. But surely a publisher is a business, and therefore has to chase sales to exist? If the public demand is for ‘worthy’ books, they will publish them; if not, they won’t. Maybe it might help people to remember that a publisher is a person doing a job – to sift through hundreds of manuscripts (of varying standard) and try to do the best job they can to make money for the company whilst producing quality products. Sometimes this will be a lucky new author, sometimes a crowd-pleaser and sometimes a celebrity piece, because, let’s face it, people buy celebrity books.

I have been into my local bookshops a few times lately. Sadly these are not as extensive as I might like. A WH Smith with a relatively small book section is my closest bookshop; followed by a moderate Waterstones in the larger town roughly 10 miles east and the same west. A decent size Waterstones is about an hour’s car ride; for a good-sized one and smaller, more independent shops, I need to go to Newcastle which is about 45 miles away. A 90 mile round trip, then, for a good bookshop. Anyway, my point is that my physical access to books is limited, as it is for my neighbours, but what I do have to say is that in those bookshops, even the closest and most limited, there is a good range of books. Not always what I want, but a good range of literary, genre fiction, celebrity bios, and some self-published (usually with a local connection). I have seen works by established authors, debut authors, celebrities and the odd long-shot, the unexpected success, as well as the runaway phenomenons that I personally aren’t that keen on but that the buying public obviously adore, judging by the coverage. I would venture an opinion, then, that between them the publishers are getting it pretty much dead right.

Yes, there are almost certainly fantastic books that slip through the cracks and don’t get picked up (if any publishers reading this have a manuscript floating round with the name Rebecca E Brown on, that’s one of them. Just saying.) and selecting books is ultimately impossible to do completely objectively – there must always be some personal preference creeping in because no-one can turn their emotions on and off at will. But I have faith in publishers, who are (like it or not) the experts in their trade, that they are doing the best job they can, and that somewhere along the way those unfortunate deserving authors will get picked up if we keep trying and keep writing and keep improving. And if any of us do turn to self-publishing, that we do it with our eyes open and for the best possible reasons, not because we’ve taken our toys home in a huff, creating a storm out of nothing.

If, by some strange quirk, you haven’t visited Jane’s blog (which I linked to above), I recommend it as one of my must-read resources for writers, alongside Nicola Morgan’s Help! I Need A Publisher! And for a guide to self-publishing which manages to be thorough, realistic and still very entertaining, pop along to see Catherine, Caffeinated and read her story.

10 Books I Love

If you read my blog, you may have caught my interview with Nik Perring lately (still excited about that one!). Well, if you hop over to his blog today there’s a great little post about spreading the word about books you love.

It’s a great idea, as I don’t know about you but I’m always on the lookout for something new to read, and love hearing what other people enjoy. And there is always a little part of me daydreaming about the time, at some point in the hazy future, when someone makes a list with “Something or Other by Rebecca Brown” on it. (Isn’t that a great book title? Think of all the times in the bookstore you’re trying to remember the name of the book; I’d always be top of the search results…)

So here’s my little contribution, and I’d love it if you could either give me a list in the comments, or even better do your own blog post and spread the love to your own followers. But let me know so I can go read it too!

Here’s a random 10 books that I love and would highly recommend to anyone:

1. Mere Christianity by C S Lewis

2. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by, er, C S Lewis (a caveat here – I love all the Chronicles of Narnia but this is my favourite. But I can’t recommend the series more highly)

3. The Little White Horse by Elizabeth Goudge – another childhood favourite

4. Christina Rossetti (Everyman’s Poetry) – I love her poems

5. The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry

6. Around the World in 80 Days by Jules Verne

7. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon

8. Men At Arms by Terry Pratchett

9. Mary Queen of Scots by Antonia Fraser

10. Matilda by Roald Dahl – because various tweets etc yesterday reminded me how much I used to love Roald Dahl, and what better book to go on a list about book love?

So there you go. While I pop over to Amazon to leave reviews of these books, it’s over to you…

The Straw and the Camel

I have been quietly simmering for the last few days, and other than a few comments on Twitter I have kept silent. But Polly Toynbee’s article in the Guardian here today has finally broken this camel’s back.

There are many, many attacks on various churches and faiths at the moment, and it seems that Christians among many other faiths are being reviled. That is, when we are not being ridiculed and dismissed as deluded fanatics in various stages of hysteria. Or angry, hellfire-spouting, self-righteous hypocrites. None of these are particularly flattering, now are they?

I would like to take a few moments to refute some of the assertions made in Toynbee’s article. You are free, as is your human right, to read no further, but please do. It may surprise you, and I will welcome arguments with open arms in the comments.

Women’s bodies are the common battleground, symbols of all religions’ authority and identity. Cover them up with veil or burka, keep them from the altar, shave their heads, give them ritual baths, church them, make them walk a step behind, subject them to men’s authority, keep priests celibately free of women, unclean and unworthy. Eve is the cause of all temptation in Abrahamic faiths. Only by suppressing women can priests and imams hold down the power of sex, the flesh and the devil. The Church of England is on the point of schism over gay priests, women bishops and African homophobia. The secular world looks on in utter perplexity.

Women have long been subjected, with or without religion. If anyone is interested in the Biblical point of view, a Godly marriage is a partnership where both man and woman have rights and responsibilities towards each other. Perhaps people quick to point out the subjection of women should ask themselves whether this repression is carried out with a religious basis or a human, power-hungry one? And Eve is NOT the cause of all temptation. The Devil is. Jesus never discriminated against women; one of the greatest Judges in the Bible is a woman, as is one of the most moving stories of leadership under Queen Esther.

About sex, by the way: WHAT is the obsession with sex in this article? It’s a common misconception that ‘religions’, and Catholics in particular, are grim joykillers who use sex purely for ‘procreating’ – rubbish! People of faith acknowledge sex as one of God’s great gifts, BUT when enjoyed in the context He designed – marriage. Otherwise, like another great gift such as food, people misuse it, glut on it and it loses its inherent beauty. Saying religions oppress sex is a cheap and easy shot without any real thought. There are those who look down on it – ‘prudes’ – but there are as many prudes without faith in God as with.

Sex is a big issue, yes. I personally believe that sex is for marriage, and I come from both sides of the matter here, having lived with my husband for several years before we got married. I would personally prefer ‘our’ version of being ‘obsessed with sex’, in that we stress the importance of keeping it special and reserved for marriage, to the secular version wherein billboards for strip clubs cover the sides of tall office blocks, newspapers have pictures of topless girls as an integral feature, and sex is a casual or even essential part of life among teenagers and even pre-teens. Maybe a higher regard for it would lead to a healthier society? Just a thought.

The Catholic church stance on contraception – yes, this is a more difficult issue, particularly in the light of HIV epidemics and poor families who struggle with many children, and I know this is the tip of the iceberg. But on the other side, is it worth considering the context of this ban on contraception? As in the ideal society wherein sex is reserved for marriage and therefore STDs are not an issue, and a mutual society which cares for its members and tries to prevent poverty so that the number of children you have is not an issue either? Yes, this is an idealistic vision which bears little resemblance to the world. But does that make it less valuable? Should we not picture our ideal society in case it never happens, and should we not try to make it happen? I don’t know on this one. Doubtless the Church should do more against HIV. But it is not a lack of contraceptive that spreads HIV, it is Man’s actions. I am painfully aware I am speaking from my armchair on this one, so I will say no more for now.

Trying to deny the primal life force has led to centuries of persecution, suffering, secrecy and breathtaking hypocrisy. Wherever male cultural leaders hold absolute and unscrutinised power, women and children will be abused. In western secular life this has at last been recognised: in schools, prisons, care homes and within families, wherever the powerless are unseen and unheard, horrors will happen without checks and transparency. Abusers gravitate towards closed organisations, and absolute power turns people into abusers. But the Vatican still talks of a few bad apples requiring internal discipline, the pope refusing to hand rapists over to secular law. Imams, gurus, priests, all hold sway over the vulnerable. As secretive madrasas and new religious “free” schools multiply while officials nervously respect their cultural independence, expect more abuse as bad as the Belgian Catholic cases now emerging.

Abuse is wrong, full stop. It is the more tragic when it is carried out by people of authority, in positions of trust, and these are even more emotive when God enters the question. But it is important to remember that, actually, God is not entering the question. Nowhere does God say His priests can abuse anyone, let alone children. Children are infinitely precious to God. These abusers were taking advantage of their position, which could have been that of a priest, a teacher or a family member. And abuse is more common by a family member than anyone else – talk about a position of trust and authority. These situations were badly handled but demonising all priests and believers is not the way to go. And pre-empting abuse as in the passage above is just, frankly, silly and hysterical.

The other dominion the religions control is death. Were it not for the faiths with their grip on hospices and palliative care, the law on assisted dying would be reformed

Yikes! So is Toynbee advocating a free-for-all? Perhaps someone SHOULD have a grip on hospices? In fact, if we’re on the question of hospices, perhaps we should be grateful that faiths have such a care for the dying that they provide hospices at all? I do not see the government trying desperately to provide palliative care but prevented by the grip of those darned faiths.

In a week when, on the wilder fringes, a Florida pastor’s threat to burn200 copies of the Qur’an risked igniting holy war among equally extreme battalions of Islamist fundamentalists, while hate-filled Christians try to stop the building of a Muslim centre in a New York that is remembering the jihadist attack victims, nobody needs reminding of the incendiary dangers of religion. But just when democracies should determinedly separate religion from state, the British state appeases, most alarmingly in new segregated schools. Why invite the pope on a “state” visit costing millions in a time of cutbacks?

The threat to burn the Qu’ran did not risk igniting holy war. Muslims were, quite naturally, offended by some insensitive fool threatening to destroy their holy book. I would be rather offended if people said they were going to burn the Bible, although I expect to see it any day now. The stated warnings from the US and UK governments that the burning would endanger the troops in Afghanistan was ridiculous. The troops are an Invasion force occupying a foreign country with little justification, spending millions in the process. They are already under threat. The key to their safety lies in the hands of the governments keeping them there.

And, by the way, a ‘”state” visit’? The Pope is a Head of State, so like it or not, his visit is a State visit. What he does on his visit is another matter. Yes, he will celebrate Mass. Are you seriously proposing that the Pope does NOT celebrate Mass? Would you ask a Muslim leader to not carry out his daily prayers while on a visit somewhere? And should he not advocate his views and opinions? Where would his moral stance be then? He would be quite rightly criticised as a hypocrite for keeping quiet merely to avoid rocking the boat. Kind of a lose-lose situation there I think.

All atheists now tend to be called “militant”, yet we seek to silence none, to burn no books, to stop no masses or Friday prayers, impose no laws, asking only free choice over sex and death. Religion deserves its say, but only proportional to its numbers. No privileges, no special protection against feeling offended.

No, militant atheists are called militant. At the risk of generalising as badly as Toynbee does here, atheists may not seek to silence any by force, but I have too often lately seen ridicule, humiliation and laughing dismissal of faith to doubt that there is silencing by emotional means. We are often seen as deluded and retrogressive. God? Who believes in that old chestnut any more? Why believe in a Creator when we’ve nearly discovered the God Particle? Excuse me, but where did the God Particle come from? Am I missing something here? And one more question here – why shouldn’t there be any special protection against feeling offended? Surely everyone should be protected from feeling offended – no matter their beliefs. I have the greatest respect for atheists, provided they treat me with the same, and do not offer lazy, trite arguments without any knowledge of my faith which they are dismissing without any interest in hearing my side of things.

The director of pastoral affairs in the Westminster diocese, Edmund Adamus, says Britain has become a “selfish hedonistic wasteland” of sex and secularism. He echoes the supreme arrogance of all the religious who claim there is no morality without God. Nonsense, but unlike the religious the godless claim no moral superiority. Wise humanists know that good and bad are pretty evenly distributed. Humanity has an innate moral sense, without threats of divine wrath and reward. Good and bad works are done by both the secular and the religious. But wherever the institutions of religion wield real power, they prove a force for cruelty and hypocrisy.

‘Nonsense’? In the very sentence after declaiming the ‘supreme arrogance’ of religion? Ha! But seriously, the ‘religious’ do not see themselves as morally superior. We are aware of our failings and faults, acutely aware, but we have the joy and hope of salvation. Unlike the non-religious, those of ‘faith’ do not claim that our worth comes from us ourselves, our own merits. Any merits we have we know to be the gift of God and an echo of Him in ourselves. Our soul is our part of God that we carry with us, and any good in me is entirely down to how much I let God work through me. I have often, lately, been given the great compliment of being a good listener and a caring person. I would say to those people, that this is entirely due to my blossoming confidence in my own worth as a woman of God. That there is One who loves me no matter what, so I want, need, to extend this unconditional love to those I care about. And in case you are thinking, “Yes, but those will be other Christians”, no, actually, they’re not. The ones I am particularly thinking of as I type are staunchly atheist. But then again, you cannot trust what I say, because I am a “hate-filled Christian” (from the article quoted here). Huh.

Can I really let the last sentence of this section pass without comment? That the institutions of religion prove a force for cruelty and hypocrisy? That no other institutions do the same? Can I really not point out that bodies such as the Quakers fought the hardest against slavery? That Jesuits provided education that would only have been the purlieu of the rich? The problem is not that God is in the equation, but that His name is, and is being used as a cover. Humankind in any institution or force has again and again proven a force for cruelty and hypocrisy.

Atheists are good haters, they claim, but feeble compared with the religious sects. Atheists have dried-up souls, without spiritual or visionary transcendentalism. To which we say: the human imagination is all we need to hold in awe. Live in optimism without fear of judgment and death. There is enough purpose and meaning in life, love and leaving a good legacy. Oppose the danger of religious zealotry with the liberating belief that life on earth is precious because this here and now is all there is, and our destiny is in our own hands.

Do atheists have souls? I mean, by their own arguments? This is a genuine question. If so, why, if this is all there is? Life on earth is no less precious because of a hope in the hereafter- it is more so. I mentioned before that we have the hope of salvation – if this is deluded, then I am glad to be deluded because I do have hope, I have a reason for my existence greater than being a mere chance, I have knowledge of myself as a child of God and a wondrous creation, not just a random assortment of molecules. I have witnessed a love greater than I can describe, and while articles that denigrate that love rile me, I know that God can transcend that, without my pitiful blog post in His defence.

My belief does not oppress me – it liberates me far more than I could ever have imagined.

A Not So Perfect Interview with Nik Perring

Recently I won a draw on Bah! To Cancer’s blog for a signed copy of a book of short stories by Nik Perring, Not So Perfect. By the way, if you haven’t visited Bah! to Cancer before, pop over now and have a look, it’s a great site. No, not now, I’ll never get you back. Go at the end of the post, when you’ve commented about how wonderful I am. Sorry, Nik Perring is.

I’d heard great stuff about this little book, and I was over the moon to win a signed copy for myself. I started reading it quite late at night, intending to read a couple of stories then and digest it slowly, but I was completely hooked and devoured the whole lot in one sitting. I would have gone back and read it again but my husband turned the light off. Grr.

There are 22 short short stories, and they really are short. The book is a small square and each story is only a couple of pages, but my goodness! Nik Perring says more in those couple of pages than a lot of people get to in three sides of A4. There is a range of stories too, some are more whimsical but some left me feeling like I’d been punched in the stomach. I think I actually caught myself holding my breath after Shark Boy. This was my favourite story, but the others were all wonderful, and like the best short stories, you can go back and re-read each one to find more and more layers and meanings. The stories are kind of like one of those rich sweets you get from a posh chocolate shop, y’know? They’re only tiny, you gobble a couple down, and just enjoy the experience, then you learn to chew them properly and discover all the flavours. Sorry about all the food references, it’s past my elevenses time.

So if that hasn’t whetted your appetite yet (sorry!), I was lucky enough to persuade Nik to give me a quick sort-of-interview. This is my first crack at this, so be kind to me…

How did you get published? Was it a long tortuous process involving pulling out of hair and staring into empty gin bottles in front of a dying fire?

This is going to sound very arrogant, so I apologise in advance, but my path to publication was really straight forward. I found a publisher I loved and wanted to work with (Roast Books), and I submitted to them. They liked what they read, asked for more, I sent those in, which they also liked, and so they said yes.  I would say though that I think the reason it was all so straight forward was because I’d spent an awful lot of time doing the hard work.

As for gin, well, I’m saying nothing!

If you had to pick one story from Not So Perfect – I mean, if your life depended on it – which would it be?

That’s always a really, really difficult question to answer, probably impossible, because I genuinely love, and am proud of, them all. I really enjoyed writing Number 14 because that was about the first one I’d attempted after deciding that writing short stories was what I wanted to do, and I loved writing Seconds Are Ticking By because it came so quickly and fully formed. I’ll always be fond of Shark Boy and In My Head I’m Venus because they’re really good fun to read out, like Kiss and The Mechanical Woman, and – and…

What was your process in making an anthology? Did you write a million stories and then choose 22?

The twenty-two that made it into Not So Perfect were my best and the ones that fitted together the best. There were a few that got left out because it was clear that they were different and didn’t quite fit but, to be honest, it all came together very naturally (and I’m a stickler for only putting work out there that I really love which I think helped the process).

What’s the best thing about being a published author? Or the worst?

The best thing is that people are reading my work and, apparently, enjoying it. That’s really, really special. It’s a nice feeling too to know that I’m not all that bad at it!

Worst? I don’t know. There are lots of bits about it that aren’t perfect. Being a writer’s a lonely occupation. I’ve seen people’s attitudes towards me change since this book’s come out, often in a not so perfect way. There’s a pretty constant sense of worry and anxiety and pressure.

But mostly, and I genuinely mean this (despite sounding like an utter grump) I love the job.

If you were giving advice to a newbie, what would be the one essential ingredient to a perfect (or not so perfect) short story?

Truth, I think. And by that I mean being true to yourself and being true to the story. So, not trying to write like someone else and not trying to write something you think a certain sort of person would like. I think any writer will write best when they’re writing something they’re enjoying (it’s a lot less pressure then too!). So yes, truth and feel free to write whatever you want to write.

The other advice would be: Just Do It! Be brave!

(You can see a list of my short story writing tips here: http://thestorycorrective.com/short-story-tips/)

Thanks so much for having me on here! It’s been a pleasure!

Thanks Nik!

Nik Perring is a writer, and occasional teacher of writing, from the north west. His short stories have been published widely in places including SmokeLong Quarterly, 3 :AM and Word Riot. They’ve also been read at events and on radio, printed on fliers and used as part of a high school distance learning course in the US.

Nik’s debut collection of short stories, NOT SO PERFECT is published by Roast Books and is out now. Nik blogs here (http://nikperring.blogspot.com) and his website’s here (www.nperring.com). He also offers short story help here (http://thestorycorrective.com/).


I’m In Love…

…with Build A Bear!

I was recently put in touch with Estelle from Publicasity, who wanted some Mummy bloggers to have a trip to Build A Bear and blog about their experience, and it’s somewhere I’ve wanted to take Daniel for ages so I leaped at the chance. And I have to say, I absolutely love this shop and cannot recommend them highly enough. With or without children.

We went to the Metrocentre store, which I am reliably informed is one of the biggest in the UK. I can believe it – there is loads of room to manoeuvre a pram, despite there being plenty of customers, and still have loads of products to look at – in fact, I had no idea you could get this much gear for a teddy bear! Anyway, the store is lovely and welcoming, and big enough so that a small child doesn’t feel hemmed in.

Now, I need to remind you that Daniel is just over 3, and has more mood swings than I did when I was pregnant. All the way there he was excited, talking about the big orange bear he was going to make. The minute we stepped foot inside Build A Bear, he clammed up and clung to me or Grandma, refusing to look at the bears or any of the display models. We built Emily’s bear, we coaxed him towards the machines, the clothes, the brushes, but he simply refused to take part. All through this the staff were unfailingly patient. Kate, who was looking after us, never faltered in her enthusiasm or her extremely kind manner with him, but eventually we admitted defeat. We decided to go and have a drink and a sticky bun, then come back, and as soon as we left the shop, the weather vane spun again and Daniel suddenly couldn’t live without a bear. Grr. So we trooped back in, and the wonderful Kate took a very quiet but happy Daniel through all the steps of building his bear.

If you’ve never done this, you have to. I insist. Now. Go. After choosing your bear, and there are too many gorgeous ones to choose (I was particularly drawn to the monkey and the terrier, but both children got traditional teddy bears) you take it to the stuffing machine. These are pretty big and noisy, but Daniel wasn’t in the least bothered, and I think this is mostly because the child controls the machine using a pedal. This kind of detail shows how much the designers have taken children’s needs into consideration, and it was very much appreciated yesterday. By the way, a note about the actual bears. Some, for example the Champ that Daniel chose, are quite long-haired, but the Velvety one we got for Emily is specially designed for babies or children with asthma or other allergies. It has short hair that doesn’t moult and is very baby safe. Just in case you were wondering. And the construction of all the bears is really clever, so that when it is stuffed you cannot see which bits were ready-stitched and which were just finished off in the shop. There are no loose threads, for example. Anyway…

I’m not going to go through every step of the process, but Daniel loved it. He chose the sound to go in- we decided to go for a pre-recorded sound rather than doing it himself. Watch out for the giggle, that’s a little creepy, as is the optional ‘beating heart’. The other sounds are great though. All the way through Daniel felt really engaged, and he was obviously in charge of his bear, brushing its fur and choosing its clothes. Oh, the clothes! Beautifully made, a HUGE range of styles and colours, and even some novelty costumes (including a Darth Vader outfit – seriously). Shoes; accessories for every occasion – no excuse for a well-dressed bear to ever be without the perfect outfit. Daniel ended up with a groovy guitar dude, complete with hoodie, jeans and shades. Once he was dressed, we went to the computer station to complete the bear’s birth certificate. Yes, birth certificate. Although Daniel insists it’s a treasure map. Armed with birth certificate, which is really nice because you can personalise who stuffed the bear, for example Emily’s says “Stuffed with hugs by Mummy”, the bear is popped into its house (a sturdy carrying box) and away you go.
The thing with Build a Bear is that although the initial outlay is a little high – although well worth it, for the quality of the teddy – the clothes and accessories cover pretty much any budget. You can get, for example, a full outfit for around £10-ish or something small like a guitar for £2.50, which means it’s a good bet for pocket money or birthday money. Also, these bears will last for YEARS, and there will always be some outfit or accessory you haven’t got, so it’s a brilliant idea for grandparents or relatives who may be struggling for present ideas. You can even get a wardrobe to keep it all in!

The problem is, I can see it becoming addictive. I went straight home and looked on the website for more outfits and shoes.

I’m just glad I have my children. Now I have an excuse to keep going back!

Note: I have some lovely pictures which I took on my visit but for some reason WordPress is not playing nicely so until I can figure out how to get these pictures up you’ll have to imagine two very cute bears and two even cuter children. Many thanks.