Now Offering (Cautiously, Experimentally): Manuscript Evaluation
Malcolm Gladwell, New York Times best-selling author of The Outliers, writes that "10,000 hours is the magic number for true expertise." After twenty-some years of teaching fiction writing, and reading hundreds of novel manuscripts and a thousand short stories (a guess), I have my hours in and then some.
If you don't, and if you're trying to write, there are ways to shorten that 10,000 hour number–though not by a lot. You still need to put in the time. Lots of it. But a good editor can help you penetrate to the heart of why your story or novel is "close" but still not "there." An editor's job is to find that key technique, that missing component to a piece of fiction–and recommend strategies for revision at both the structural and stylistic level. A really good editor creates doorways in the corners you've backed yourself into.
Since I left the classroom, my "On Writing Blog"has been my body-double in the writer's workshop, the advanced fiction seminar, the lecture on the publishing world as it is right now. In the blog I've tried to give away everything I've learned about writing and publishing, including literary agents, fiction technique, dealing with editors,adult versus young adult fiction, writing the memoir, etc. There's enough in there for a short (and free!) book on writing.
However, if you have a novel or short story collection and are looking for more pointed help, I'm now offering manuscript evaluation on very limited basis. I will take on the occasional novel-in-progress (you must have a full draft) if it meets certain writing standards. I can't do true beginner's fiction–that is, you are a person who, because you speak English and suddenly have a grand idea for a plot, think you can write a novel; this sounds harsh but needs to be said. Margaret Atwood has joked about the same issue:
A surgeon, trying to be cheerful to his patient, asks if she's "still writing."
"Why yes, I am," shesays.
"When I retire, I thinkI'll write a novel," the doctor says.
"When I retire, I'm going to be brain surgeon," the woman replies.
Writing is a process, not an impulse or a miracle. Very few people–even if youngish and healthy–suddenly decide to be a major league pitcher. We know in our bones that it take years of practice to be competitive (here we're back to Gladwell again).
On the other hand, writing is a life sport, and we have to start somewhere. Ideally you have already started, and have put in some serious time on a serious literary project. You have a full draft, but it needs . .. "something." That something probably is the clear, objective eye of a professional editor.
The Editorial Process:
1. You submit a couple of chapters (maximum of thirty double-spaced pages). I read your submission and decide whether we'd be a good match; you have my writing blog and my published fiction to consider when deciding the same. Important note: If my fiction is "not your type," then I probably wouldn't be the right editor for you, either. Please note that I don't write, or read much fantasy and so would not be the best editor in that genre.
2. I'll try to read your submission sample on the spot. If it's a "go"–if I agree to evaluate your manuscript–I'll let you know immediately. I'll also give you the turn-around time, which should be a month or less.
3. My Fee:
$500 for a manuscript of up to 50,000 words
$750 for a manuscript of up to 75,000 words
$1000 for a manuscript of up to 100,000 words
4. "So,what do I get for my money, Mister?"
• a close, thoughtful reading of your manuscript with an eye toward its publication;
• an editorial letter, 2-3 pages long, single-spaced, of the kind you'd get from a New York editor: what works, what doesn't, and strategies for revision "before we can consider your work for publication," as they say;
• up to twenty pages of line editing; that is, an illustrated sample of how your sentences might (okay, should) read in terms of amplifying their effect. The goal here is to show you the techniques of fictional style (which I also cover in my"On Writing" blog).
5. The Paperless Trail, or "How We Do This":
• you send a sample chapter (as above);
• if I reply"Yes," you send me your full manuscript via email attachment. Manuscript should be generally in Modern Language Association (MLA) and Microsoft Word format, that is, double-spaced pages with appropriate pagination. Use a basic font such as Helvetica or New York Times. I'd prefer that your novel be one long file (though with your chapter delineations inside it, of course). Don't fret over making sure each new chapter starts at the top of the page; it's your prose I'm interested in, not the secretarial end, though I'll comment on that too if it's way out of whack. (While screenplay formatting separates insiders from newbies, the publishing world is a bit more forgiving);
• you send, by regular mail, a personal or cashier's check for 2/3 of my fee (I try to avoid Paypal and the like);
• When I get your check, I set to work. When I finish, I return your manuscript via email file with the sample of close line editing and summary comments on your writing style. The line editing will be done electronically via MicrosoftWord, under Tools/Track Changes; it's the standard in publishing nowadays. You send the final payment. When I receive it, I send your editorial letter.
• Depending upon my schedule, I might be available for additional line editing at $3.00 per page. But that gets expensive for you, and the purpose of my line editing sample is that, after reading, you can see what your prose needs and fix it yourself. Note that line editing is not copyediting (final proofreading).
To be totally frank, I might not offer manuscript evaluation except that my former literary agency, which had served me well for twenty years, went rogue and stole a lot of money from me. I have advice on how to avoid that, too.
p.s. There's nice blurb in my blog comment section from an aspiring writer whom I worked with recently.
If you are at all a literary person, at some point you have to read the Russians. American literature feels like a boy among men when you stand the two side by side. And unless you've gotten your tongue and brain around the Cyrillic alphabet, which I have not (I tried, really hard, long ago at the University of Minnesota--enough to have a Minor in Russian Studies but I never made much headway in the language), then you must read Russian Lit in translation. Not a big deal, the variations in translations. Why fuss over the small stuff--this word here, that emphasis there. Or it is a big deal? If you believe that life is in the details, then you probably should pay attention to whose translation you are about to read.
"The talk was that a new face had appeared on the embankment: a lady with a little dog. Dmitri Dmitrich Gurov, who had already spent two weeks in Yalta and was used to it, also began to take an interest in new faces. Sitting in a pavilion at Vernet's he saw a young woman, not very tall, blond, in a beret, walking along the embankment; behind her ran a white spitz."
Trans: Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Anton Chekhov: Stories. Bantam. 2000
2.
"They were saying a new face had been seen on the esplanade: a lady with a pet dog. Dmitry Dmitrich Gurov, who had already spent two weeks in Yalta and regarded himself as an old hand, was beginning to show an interest in new faces. He was sitting in Vernet's coffeehouse when he saw a young lady, blonde and fairly tall, wearing a beret and walking along the esplanade. A white Pomeranian was trotting behind her."
Trans: RobertPayne, 1963. The Image of Chekhov: Forty Stories by Anton Chekhov. Vintage Russian Library. 1963
3.
"It was said that a new person had appeared on the seafront: a lady with a little dog. Dmitri Dmitrivich Gurov, who had by then been a fortnight at Yalta, and so was fairly at home there, had begun to take an interest in new arrivals. Sitting in Verney's pavilion, he saw, walking on the seafront, a fair-haired young lady of medium height, wearing a beret; a white Pomeranian dog was running behind her."
Trans: Constance Garnett, 1945. Great Russian Short Stories. Ed. Norris Houghton. Dell. 1958.
----------------------------------------------
The span of decades, from the 21st century team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (he's American, she's Russian) to the venerable Constance Garnett (1861-1946) whose name appears on much of the first generation of translations of Russian Lit, is of immediate interest. In terms of diction, notice Garnett's "fortnight" versus "two weeks" in the later pair.
But let's look for subtler contrasts. It's probably easiest to spot translation "issues" by a close explication with the phrasing side-by-side. Let's use a triptych pattern of newest to oldest translation:
"They were saying. . ./The talk was. . ./It was said. . . " Note the subtle decline of immediacy. The verb phrases recede from a fairly concrete 'they' (people) who were definitely 'saying' to a more general 'the talk was' (note now actual people are gone here), to the very passive and subjunctive construction 'It was said.' The latter (Constance Garnett's) has, I think, the better grasp of the psychological atmosphere of the summer seaside resort. Time has slowed down. One fellow, Gurov, has nothing better to do that sit and drink coffee and watch the sea and people who walk near it. 'It was said' has the larger import, suggesting that what was said might or might not be true, with a tilt toward the latter. The matter of doubt is no small thing: it gives the plot (the potential arrival of new person) a clear uptick in energy. 'It was said' also has the scent of The Period about it (late 19th century)–not so blunt or direct as modern expression. Overall, Garnett has the most pleasing mesh of language and manners contemporaneous to the story.
Next, "a new face. . ./ a new face. . . / a new person. . . " Not a lot to say here. Garnett's diction choice stays with reserve and distance; the more modern 'face' shortens the social depth of field.
And then intelligence of the woman who "appeared on the embankment. . . / had been seen on the esplanade. . . / had appeared on the seafront. . ." Here we have three quite different choices, of which 'embankment' seems the most over-thought and downright clumsy option. 'Esplanade' is a splendid word, and is my choice. It denotes a flat area along the sea (originally 'top of a rampart' ) on which people stroll for pleasure–which is what we do when we arrive at the beach. 'Embankment' means dike or barrier to hold back water, and carries no connotation of pleasure-walking. 'Sea-front' will serve, though could mean on the sand, the beach itself, rather than on a more civilized terrace (we imagine a walkway of paving stones, or brickwork underfoot suitable for leather shoes and perambulators–a word Constance Garnett would certainly have chosen).
Gurov (Dmitri/Dimitry/Dimitri Dimitrivich), the translators agree, has been at the resort two weeks. They differ slightly on the effects of his vacation. Because of the two week stay Gurov". . . was used to it/. . . regarded himself as an old hand /. . . was fairly at home there. . . ." Again, the modern 'used to it' feels flat. Lifeless. The psychological energy–an incipience– built up from two weeks' rest and reflection is gone. Garnett's 'at home there' will do, as we all know the feeling of finally settling into a vacation spot. But Payne's 'regarded himself as old hand' is the more pleasing choice. It carries a sense of playfulness; that Gurov's imagination is working and that he is open to adventure.
Gurov was "Sitting in a pavilion at Vernet's he saw. . . /He was sitting in Vernet's coffeehouse when he saw. . . /Sitting in Verney's pavilion, he saw. . . ." Technically speaking, Payne's 'was sitting' is most correct. Gurov is seated. The other two, especially Pevear and Volokhonsky's, feel slightly dangly in terms of their participles.
And by dint of his two weeks, Gurov "also began to take an interest in new faces. . . /was beginning to show an interest in new faces. . . / had begun to take an interest in new arrivals. . ." No huge contrasts here in the three verb constructions. At most, an echo of the more immediate to the more reserved expression.
He saw a "young woman, not very tall, blond. . . /young lady, blonde and fairly tall/. . . a fair-haired young lady of medium height. . . " Okay, was she or wasn't she (tall)? Not that it really matters, but one would think the translators could agree on that.
And I think "wearing a beret . . ." as opposed to ". . . in a beret". It's the kind of thing a good copy editor would flag.
Finally, ". . . behind her ran a white spitz/. . . A white Pomeranian was trotting behind her./ . . .a white Pomeranian dog was running behind her." Spitz or Pomeranian, no big deal--all three translators agree it was a small white dog. And slight variation again in the verb choice and construction (I prefer 'trotting', which fits the tone of the seashore life). But Pevear and Volokhonsky have made a rather serious syntactical choice: to end the paragraph with the dog rather than with the woman. This is troublesome. The story is not about the dog, but about the new woman who catches Gurov's eye and interest, and with whom he becomes entangled. It leaves the sense the modern translators have not penetrated below the surface of the story, and are slightly lost, well, in the translation. To be fair, the pair talk about their process of translation on a BBC interview "In Other Words" from CBC, podcast in 2007. It might be worth a look. Garnett has her own problems, noted by Joseph Brodsky, who said that non-speakers can't really tell the difference between Dostoevsky and Tolstoy "because they're not reading either one--they're reading Constance Garnett." Maybe the take-away here is to shy away from very old and very new translations.
Sometimes we convince ourselves that the shoes we bought and are wearing fit well, that we are happy with them. But our feet have their own opinion – as does the mind's ear when we read. If you feel a faraway but no less real discomfort, it might well be not you but the translation.