Smatterings, everywhere

Malcolm Lowry reconsidered on the 50th anniversary of his death. (Via.)

Everything you could want to know about Irene Nemirovsky is probably contained in this essay by Benita Eisler.

The Times reprints Ian Rankin's introduction to the ROUGH GUIDE TO CRIME FICTION.

Patrick Anderson goes into some dark places after reading Brent Ghelfi's debut thriller VOLK'S GAME.

Ali Karim reports back after attending the 20th anniversary party of Jane Gregory's literary agency.

Jennifer Jordan was the latest guest on Bleak House's Podcast. Benjamin Leroy also writes in to let people know that they are looking for an aspiring author to ask questions of a publisher on
behalf of authors everywhere. Deadline to submit is July 1.

Ed takes Dana Gioia to task for a Stanford commencement speech.

Critical Compendium: your one-stop shopping for book review links. (Via) 

John Burdett's Bangkok 8 has been optioned for film by Millenium Films.

Paula Woods wishes an editor had taken more time polishing the "diamond in the rough" that is NEW ENGLAND WHITE.

Michael Robotham explains to the Adelaide Advertiser how much he's enjoyed leaving ghostwriting behind for crime novels.

And finally, giant penguins? Cool!!

Comments

[Keith Raffel]

I read Malcolm Lowry's Under the Volcano in a college lit class. Can't remember it all that well, but for ten years after graduation, I told anyone who asked that it was my favorite novel. Am afraid to re-read it now.

[Theophrastus Bombastus]

Under The Volcano, when all's said and done, likely is the best book ever written in Canada.
Which makes it puzzling that no major Canadian paper (at least from what I can tell online) has noticed the 50th of old Malc's passing.
Guess they'll just have to make up for that when his hundredth comes around in '09.

[Helen DeWitt]

'Paula Woods wishes an editor had taken more time polishing...' Helen DeWitt wishes Paula Woods had done more research before trotting out this old chestnut.

When a book is sent to an editor, it's common for the editor to take upwards of a month to return comments. Time the author might otherwise have spent on the book is spent waiting for comments. If the editor takes 6 weeks instead of a month, that's 6 weeks waiting instead of revising. If it's 2 months, that's 2 months waiting.

An author's contract, however, often specifies the date by which the revised manuscript must be returned. The author does not get a one-month extension because the editor took an extra month to return his comments. On the contrary. If the editor is late, the author is under pressure for a quick turnaround, because the MS has to get off to the copy-editor if the book is to meet its publication date. The more time the editor takes, the less time there is for the author to do any serious work.

I've written reviews, and I've certainly never had the energy to chase down a copy of the original MS and editorial comments before assessing the finished product - let alone checked out the author's contract or made enquiries as to the allocation of time to editor and writer. Reviewing doesn't pay well; it would be insane to spend that much time on it. But then, I haven't indulged in claims that only insanely time-consuming research could back up.