What are editors paid for?

[callmemadam]

There have been rave reviews of Rebecca Hunt’s book Mr Chartwell. It’s certainly based on a very original idea. Winston Churchill is eighty nine and about to retire at last from the House of Commons. He is visited by his ‘black dog’, the name he gave to his bouts of depression. Here’s the trick: in this book the dog is a real one, enormous and with all a dog’s unpleasant habits and none of its nice ones. The dog has other victims. Calling himself ‘Mr Chartwell’, he rents a room in the home of Esther, a widowed clerk in the House of Commons Library. Esther finds living with him uncomfortable yet somehow inevitable and she realises that ‘Black Pat’ was a frequent visitor to her husband Michael. The big question is who will win the battle; Esther, who must find the courage to make him leave, or Black Pat, who wants to stay with her forever. As I said, a very original idea but oh dear, I nearly didn’t get past page one. Here’s why.

Churchill prepared himself for the day ahead, his mind putting out analytical fingers …

A view of the Weald of Kent stretched beyond the windows, lying under an animal skin of mist.

Although fully awake, Churchill’s eyes remained closed.

It’s that last, terrible sentence which nearly had me flinging the book across the room (it was a library book, so I desisted). The writing is unnecessarily complicated by the overuse of similes and synonyms and I could have done without so many carefully researched pointers to the year, 1964. Oh, and the Brownie salute is made with two fingers, not three; easy enough to check, surely? I’m appalled that a book with so many faults can be so highly praised and I blame the editors.

Comments

[land-girl.livejournal.com]

I'm sure we made a Brownie salute with three fingers (the middle three) - but I am quite capable of making up salutes of my own and believing in them, so don't listen to me!

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

I remember it as two for Brownies, three for Guides. Hope I'm right, now I've stuck my neck out!

[land-girl.livejournal.com]

I will ask Florence when she gets home!!

[trixiebacon.livejournal.com]

Your examples did make me chuckle, and I love the idea of you flinging the book as a result of them. What was the writer thinking of?

Good cover, though.

the Brownie salute is made with two fingers

[(Anonymous)]

In our day the Brownie salute was definitely made with two fingers and the Guide salute with three. I remember quite clearly that after having 'flown up' I found it quite difficult to raise that additional finger. Tried it just now and found it still difficult!
Wee sister

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

This is what I remember too. Maybe it changed?

[ooxc.livejournal.com]

Definitely - two for Brownies and three for Guides - except when a Brownie accidentally copies Brown Owl! But, unbelievably, i can't remember why - something to do with the variables in Law and Promise? Will ask at Trefoil Guild!

[gghost.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear. I have a copy of this book in my TBR stack.

Re: the Brownie salute is made with two fingers

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

Yes, three fingers for the threefold promise. I can't remember why the Brownie salute is two fingers.

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

You may love it! It is interesting but overambitious, IMO. It was brave to invent conversations for Churchill and Alec Douglas Home.

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

I just checked some Google images and there are some of modern Brownies saluting with two fingers.

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

There's a good picture on the back as well.

[ooxc.livejournal.com]

Presumably their promise was twofold at that time? That's why I will ask Trefoil Guild what the Brownie promise is now - perhaps it's now the same ?

[oddny.livejournal.com]

I started to read it in a quiet couple of afternoons at the charity shop but ended up skimming to the end. I quite enjoyed the meeting between Chartwell and Clemmie though.
Have had to restrict my blog to invitation only by the way, after a spate of unpleasant comments. You are still very welcome. E-mail me at lesleyskepper@yahoo.co.uk if you would like an invitation. It's a ad state of affairs though. I dislike being restricted:-(

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

What a shame! Will do.

[geraniumcat.livejournal.com]

I'd probably have ground to a halt at his mind putting out analytical fingers - good grief! But I humbly submit, on behalf of copy-editors everywhere, that many of us would have checked that the author had got the Brownie salute right.

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

Of course you would! I think several people who read this are editors so I should have put in a caveat.

[(Anonymous)]

There's something so satisfying about throwing a book across the room! I can't bear novels that are too research-y so I don't think I'll be reading this one.
Nicola@vintagereads

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

It's when the research is so obvious that it annoys me. Birdsong is a good example. With this book, the bad writing upset me more.

[(Anonymous)]

Oo, I was guilty of liking this quite a bit... I must confess, I don't have a huge problem with those sentences, perhaps because I see so much worse in most new books. I prefer sparser writing, but... five seconds with Lionel Shriver, for instance, would make me think Rebecca Hunt the greatest stylist ever. And I actually met her, and she's very funny... completely incidentally.

[callmemadam.livejournal.com]

I haven't read Lionel Shriver and don't intend to. I just saw today that We Need to Talk about Kevin is on the top 100 favourite books list. Some people don't care how a book is written.