Very busy editing my current novel at the moment. In the meantime, a review of Stephen J Gould's Rocks of Ages has been published on Spike magazine.

Slaughterhouse-5

A brief note to say that my review of Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-5, prompted by a visit to Dresden, has been posted at a new site called Susurrate. The site is repository for original reviews related to science fiction. Some of the (other) reviews are really good. Check them out.

Progress progresses

It's Saturday morning again - blog time - and, when I cast my eye over the writing week, I find that all my efforts have gone into rewriting the early sections of Proper Job. Goodbye to the chase scene, and hello to a scene in which the protagonist, Fabe, makes a disastrous play for Penelope, who forms a particularly sharp corner of the love triangle at the centre of the book.

I'm using a time-consuming and ancient technique known as drafting. For those who have only ever used word processors, a quick history lesson: Once upon a time, writers would write a draft of story - often on a typewriter, but sometimes (yikes) with a pen or pencil - and, after collecting some feedback about the draft, would sit down and completely rewrite it.

Quaint though it is, I like the idea. Ken Follett still does it. He prints out a draft, puts it next to the computer, and rewrites the thing from scratch using the first draft as a guide. It is time-consuming but very useful in catching all manner of problems with the manuscript. In addition, failing to re-insert something is easier than actually deleting it, and since the editing process, for me, is chiefly one of deletion, this can only be beneficial.

Once I've ironed out some typos, I'll repaste the first chapter here and you can get a flavour of how the novel is evolving.

Technorati Tags: proper job

The Importance of Being Edited

A Saturday morning ritual for me is reading the Guardian Review, a publication that generally fits with my outlook and produces good reviews (though the editors are occasionally guilty of having right-wingers review left-wing work, or a homeopathic practitioner review a history of conventional medicine). One of this morning's interesting articles is 'Black day for the blue pencil' by Blake Morrison.

Mr Morrison is concerned with a modern tendency (though his article is full of historical examples of the same) to downplay the role of the editor. Several books, he argues, have been improved by judicious use of the editor's blue pencil: the Great Gatsby, and Sons and Lovers, for instance.

I don't have any bird's eye view of the publishing industry, but it is not difficult to think of contemporary examples where an editor would have been more usefully employed. The latest Harry Potter, for example, is an enjoyable read (I'm half-way through), but I can't help but feel that closer editing would have improved it. Of course, if you're the biggest selling author in the known universe, you might find it difficult keeping a sense of perspective on the changes your editor suggests. Another example - and a great book, in my opinion - is 'The Grapes of Wrath' by John Steinbeck. It's undoubtedly an excellent book, and a monumental piece of literature, but certain amount of tidying would have sharpened the jazzier passages (as, I think, Steinbeck himself admitted in his 'Working Days' journal).

I tend to agree with Mr Morrison that there is less editing these days; his economic argument is compelling. In modern publishing, and the rush to produce the book, the editing is bound to be squeezed. The less time an editor takes over a book, the quicker he or she can move onto the next potential bestseller. The question, of course, is whether this pressure is greater nowadays. I think it is.

Meanwhile, I've returned to the manuscript of my latest novel, Proper Job, after a break of approximately one month. I am armed with my editor's report, and there is no doubt in my case, I would suggest, that Rachel's work represents an excellent opportunity to improve my book so that I can secure the interest of a publisher.

The Writer's Lot-tery

By way of Grumpy Old Bookman, I was interested to read an article by The Book Babes about what factors are involved in making or breaking a book. I guess it is the wont of any writer to engage - usually with a great deal of frustration - with the publishing industry and attempt to 'crack' it: that is, find the secret door through you may pass your book to a caring publisher who will help you market your work.

The article quotes the author Jim Lynch:

"It almost seems like you to have to border on obsessive-compulsive personality disorder to succeed," says Lynch, who believes that the key to success is not only perseverance but also the ability to ignore how much "random crap" gets published and sells very, very well."

"When I finally came to peace with my novel-writing obsession was when I came to the conclusion that it is my job/goal to write a novel good enough to deserve getting on the publishing roulette wheel. That's really all a writer can do," he observed in an e-mail message. "The rest, to some degree, is up to timing, luck, connections etc. And if you start dwelling too much on what it takes to get published or reading too much into what gets published or what does well, I think it not only hurts your chances of writing something strong and original, but it also nudges you closer to the writers' ward of the nearest mental hospital."