About the Reviewer: After a highly successful career in publishing, mostly as Editorial Director firstly of Corgi Books and later of Cassell, Michael Legat became a full-time writer and tutor of Creative Writing. He has published five novels and eighteen non-fiction books, the latter including the Best Sellers An Author's Guide to Publishing and Writing for Pleasure and Profit.




OLD HORSES

BF Thor

I find this a difficult piece on which to comment. There is much to praise: the writing is fluent and has a good rhythm, you use words well, the characters are very strongly presented to the reader and their dialogue rings true, the background of the story is clearly conveyed. These are the qualities of an accomplished writer. And yet…

…somehow I did not warm to this submission. As you read on. you may well suspect that my lack of enthusiasm results from not being on the same wavelength as you. But I don't think it is that. My wavelength is a pretty broad one – as an editor it has to be – and I am practised at putting my personal likes and dislikes aside.

So, let me tell you what bothered me. (And at this point perhaps I should say that you are of course entitled to disagree with all my criticisms, though I hope that you will at least think seriously about them before rejecting them.) First of all, strongly portrayed though both Campbell and Louis are, I did not feel involved with them, I did not really care about them. Perhaps the problem is that they and their interests and Campbell's eccentricities, as depicted in these two chapters, are all very juvenile. I would like to suggest that the novel might work better if you began with a chapter from Book Two, letting us meet Louis and Campbell when their concerns are more serious than schoolboy japes, and then use flashback to show us their youth and to demonstrate what has shaped their later lives. This would also provide another element which I feel is missing at present: a sense of where the book is going. Strength of characterisation is not enough – you also need a strong hint of narrative drive, with hooks to engage your readers and make them want to know what happens next – a story in fact; cliffhangers, dramatic irony and characters misunderstanding each other are all useful devices in this respect.

Part of the trouble is that Louis is a rather negative person – a follower, never a leader. I think you need to give him a goal, something which he is truly enthusiastic about, something to love – if you were, for instance, to make his art more vitally important to him, so that he is always thinking about it, spending hours at it, and desperate to win a prize or at least unstilted praise at the art exhibition, and, most importantly, to push Campbell into second place. I also wonder whether the relationship between him and Campbell has homoerotic undertones, and if that is your intention whether you should allow the reader to see this more clearly.

A spot of cutting would strengthen these two chapters. The pace at the moment is a little on the slow side. I give this advice to almost every author whose work I comment on, and which I apply to myself as rigorously as possible. We all tend to overwrite. If you take out a word here, a phrase there, the occasional sentence or even a paragraph, wherever its absence will not be noticed, you will be surprised at how much extra sparkle it gives to your prose.

I have so far been commenting on the chapters submitted. When I came to the synopsis (I always prefer to start with the text to see the extent to which it grabs me and makes me want to discover how everything works out), I noticed that in Part Two you apparently abandon the device of labelling the chapters with the relevant days of the week. Would it not be better to title the chapters in the same style throughout?

But that is a minor point, and what worries me most about the second half of the story is that it's about a couple of losers. Admittedly Campbell has had a bit of success and is to be acclaimed posthumously, but Louis is a total failure, and novels centred on characters like him and Campbell, even if their story is 'literary' fiction rather than of the popular bestseller variety, are very difficult to sell to the reading public, as any publisher will tell you. (Non-fiction is different, and the so-called 'misery' books, about unhappy and often abused children who are certainly losers, sell in huge quantities.) So at a time when publishers are more reluctant than ever to take on any new, unknown writers, unless they see the books concerned as a copper-bottomed surefire bestsellers, you have given yourself an extra hurdle to overcome. 'Well,' you may say, 'that's too bad. My characters are what they are, and it's how I want them to be, and I cannot abandon their story.' And I would reply that if you feel so strongly about them you should certainly go ahead and finish the novel, because you will learn a great deal by so doing, but don't build your hopes of publication too high. While you're about it, give Louis as much warmth as you can, to make us care about him. And then forget about this book and use your considerable ability to write something else which is concerned with more positive characters and which has a greater narrative drive.

I'm afraid you will not be happy with this critique, and I am sorry if that is so, but I do not believe that my job is to flatter. It is to be honest in what I say, which I have been, and to give encouragement if I can – and I certainly can do that, because you have many talents.



Michael Legat

'Twas no. 8 at the start of the month, Lexi, and as some of numbers 1-7 were short stories or had already won a crit, Old Horses qualified.

I think! Oh blogger

Frame-Up is also at 13, last time I checked, and it too has a professional review under its belt and probably 30 days at least in the top ten. My guess is every work has 3 months in the regular charts no matter what, unless it ends a month in the top five, and then it's retired to the bestsellers chart.

The Top Five each month go directly to the Best Seller lists, plus any extracts or short stories that qualify under the 'longevity rule' (30 days in the top ten over three months).

The top five rated extracts get a pro crit each month - in theory if the top ten were all short stories, the extract at number 15 (or lower) gets the crit.

If an extract ends the month out of the top five, but is still one of the five top rated extracts, it gets a pro crit but does not go to the best seller list.

It has to wait until it makes the best sellers based on longevity.

When listed as a best seller it is eligible for Book of the Year.

No extract gets two pro crits however, although could (in theory) secure up to three Random House reviews for as long as the trial period continues. "Suck it up, say thank you and move on."

It's important to listen to what these professional reviewers say but not essential to act upon it. Even professionals can be wrong. And they often are. I think this is a poor crit of a very good piece of writing.

I'd listen to it BF but then I'd carry right on with what you were doing.

What a gracious response.

BF, you are both an inspiration and an aspiration.

Good luck with Old Horses, the synopsis looks great and I plan to read it over this weekend.

Well done on your pro-crit, too. Pick the cherries off the top and leave the sponge, that's what I always say.

Jill