markmatchwick.co.uk
On writing TEST
My home is the west country city of Bristol, and it's not surprising that I chose to set the novel in the city and its surrounding areas. I've kept the story free from street and place names, mainly because these titles are irrelevant - and possibly alienating - to anyone unfamiliar with the city. Instead I've referred to locations that most people will identify with - woodland, a high street or a train station - but geographically the locale is accurate and recognisable to Bristolians and visitors to the city. Omitting all references to place names also allows the reader to picture events and places in their own way, to draw a picture in their own mind. Some locations and descriptions are important to the telling of the story, and I've tried to be specific about these, but interpretation is crucial to the individual enjoyment of a story. Words and descriptions have different meanings to different people, and it's distracting and frustrating to read about a location and to then be told by the writer that it looks very different to the picture they had already formed in their mind.
'..he eventually reached the point during sleep - the period of rapid eye movement - when vivid images played out in his brain as dreams..'
Most novels that I have read - and enjoyed - have been, rather than a single strand or concept, an amalgam of ideas, thoughts or beliefs. So it's to be expected that my first novel is the sum of ideas that have intrigued and perplexed me for much of my adult life. The subject of dreams, of dream analysis and therapy, is one of the more prominent in the book. (I've devoted an entire chapter to this subject, so won't go into it too much here.) We've come a long way from the time when dreams were perceived as being solely sexual, spiritual or symbolic, but experts do not yet agree on the meaning that we give to dreams or even why we dream at all. Theories range from the nature and complexity of dreams as evidence of a soul, to them being the by-product of an overactive and underused brain capacity. I've tried to incorporate some of these ideas into the novel, without being deluded that I am able to solve a puzzle that continues to elude experts and neuroscientists.
'..it was not the legality of the matter that stayed his hand. He could make peace with that. Nor too the morality. His wife was already dying..'
I've taken a similar approach with the subject of euthanasia, more commonly referred to as mercy killing. One of the most important debates in modern times, this has been on the political horizon for perhaps a decade, but has been debated in philosophical circles for far longer. My own beliefs are evident, I think, from the text. Is life really so sacred that we would allow a person to suffer in pain or distress? The issue is, of course, a personal one, and I would not wish to comment or pass judgement on anyone else's emotional, moral choice. The legal matter is more complex. Though I did not want to complicate the narrative by going into the legal arguments surrounding euthanasia, these are unavoidably intertwined with the philosophical arguments. The crux of these asks which is the worse indictment on humanity; allowing a person to suffer or assisting them to die. And who really has the right to make decisions regarding a person's life or death. The answer seems to be that only the patient has that right. But can a terminally ill person be trusted to make an objective decision about their own health or the probability of their recovery? Is this still the case when we factor in the suffering, not just of the patient but of their family and loved ones? What about when the patient realises, as they eventually, inevitably will, that they have the power to end their own suffering and the suffering of their loved ones? Could the patient be emotionally blackmailed, possibly by their own conscience, to end their life for the sake of all suffering?
I resisted the argument, which has been used to debate against the legalisation of euthanasia, of the family being more concerned with care fees and their inheritance than with the patient's life. Mainly because I believe the argument is false and would absolutely not apply in ninety-nine percent of cases, and is being used, politically, as a Trojan horse. Instead, I've chosen to focus on a man who struggles to see any meaning in his existence following the death of his wife. Far from wanting to assist his wife, the character believes his own loss to be greater than his wife's suffering. He can see that she is in pain and he is himself tormented by a recurring nightmare in which he relives his wife's death over and over. With this approach, I can explore both sides of the debate. By showing the palliative care given to someone with a terminal illness, while also highlighting the anguish and distress caused due to prolonging a destructive and devastating illness.
'..the darker side of his mind enjoying the thrill, the nonsensical belief, that it was something sinister, some danger, that was lurking in the dark spaces..'
If I have any self-criticism of the novel, it is surrounding the theme of dark and light, which are used and referenced in many chapters throughout the book. It's a theme that has been the focus of so many stories, since the time when we first started telling stories, and crosses various genres from Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter series and - one of the oldest stories - the Bible. Far from being an original, or even a recent idea, it is the primordial game of chess; the unending battle of light versus dark.
As well as focussing on the battle between two sides, these stories also focus, to some degree, on the internal struggle of light and dark within one character. Which I think is the more interesting struggle, and is certainly more relatable, and is where some originality can be introduced. What is it that makes a person choose to go down one path or another? Are people either good or bad, or do they simply do good or bad things? It has often been the case, in life as well as in fiction, that two people of similar backgrounds can take very different paths; that someone from a perceived good upbringing can follow a 'wrong' path, while someone who has few options or opportunities in life can achieve more than was expected of them. Is it possible that some events and experiences in our lives can have a vast effect on our attitude or perception of the world? Is it all predetermined? Or is there something else going on?
​
In writing TEST, I have presented a case study of one character in order to explore and hypothesise the choices he has made and the direction his life has taken. In doing so, I am not attempting to apply these hypotheses to any other person or character or to claim any insight into the choices they may have made. The novel is simply about one character, one path, one interpretation, one story.