Watching my language

First of all – thanks and thanks again to Chris Nickson, who filled this spot for me last week while I watched sunsets, ate ice cream and visited other friends in Guernsey. I’ll try to be there are your groundbreaking launch later this month, Chris.

As well as a good friend, Chris Nickson is also an author whose work I edit. A dozen books so far and counting: I hope it will continue, and not just because I need the paid jobs to fund the holidays in Guernsey... Editing Chris’s novels doesn’t feel like work at all; it’s getting a sneak preview before it goes into print.

If only it were always so.

Editing and reviewing often require a language all their own. I don’t review much theatre any more, but anyone who knew me and read my reviews of certain shows (fortunately not many) would see the words ‘energy and enthusiasm’ or ‘the cast were having a great time’ and know exactly how to interpret them.

These days I review books, and the brief of the site I do it for is to promote the work and find the positives. I really hate the kind of review which is clearly an excuse for the reviewer to show how clever and sophisticated s/he is, and how cutting and cynical s/he can be. All I really want to know is whether the book is the kind of thing I’d enjoy. I wouldn’t want any review I write to knock the confidence of the author, especially a debut author, to the extent that s/he was put off writing for life – and it does happen.

So, as reviewer and editor alike, I try to watch my language. By the time a novel has made it to the stage at which a publisher has faith that s/he can sell it, mostly it’s like Chris’s work: an excuse to get a sneak preview before it goes into print. But when I’m working on a novel with the intention of helping the author get it to the point at which a publisher might actually read past the first few pages, I try to remember this is someone’s soul I’m bruising, and I’m careful how I express myself.

I ‘tidy up’ and ‘smooth out’. I ‘check a few minor points’ and ‘tweak the odd plot strand’. I’m sure my blogmate Terri knows what I mean; Josh too. I’m as sensitive and thin-skinned as anyone when it comes to my own writing, and I try very hard to remember that too.

OK, cards on the table. What motivated this topic for this week’s post was the novel I’m alpha-reading at the moment. The motivation was a powerful case of reverse psychology, because absolutely none of the above applies. I am positively itching to get back to it, and not just because the author is someone very close to my heart. So this will not be a long post.

In fact, enough already. I have a novel to read, and I confidently expect you’ll get the chance to read it yourselves at some point in the not too distant future. See you next week.

Comments

[Kristopher]

I don't enjoy writing negative reviews, so that was why I set for to only write blog posts about books that I enjoyed.

Some folks take this to mean that I "like" everything, when in fact, I only review about 1/3 of the books I read in a year. The others may have been fine, but not at the level where I thought the review could be predominately positive in tone.

Face to face, I have no problem telling other readers or even the author why I didn't enjoy a book, but I am not in the business of swaying people from trying something if it sounds good to them. Every book has a reader and every reader a book!

[Lynne Patrick]

Agreed, Kristopher. Even when some of us simply can't understand what other readers see in a particular book!