One of the reasons books ought to take more than 6 months to get into print is that authors (especially authors on deadline) have a habit of leaving in truly boneheaded mistakes, and we like to take as much time and effort as possible to find and excise them before the printers start rolling. As I recall, the 4th HP book had a lot of errors, little continuity mistakes and wrong-name stuff not homophones or something basic that a copyeditor could catch cold. Some of them could be corrected in reprints, but I think some others required retcon gymnastics in the 5th volume, or authorial fanon.

(If you've ever read Deanna Hoak's blog, she can explain what kind of ardor fiction copyediting really takes: not just making sure everything is coherent and in English, but checking to make sure that a frigate doesn't suddenly turn into a sloop 100 pages later. Imagine doing that over several volumes worth of material!)

Also, I mean, usually when an author has more time in production, there is more time for the editor to reach the threshold number of hammer-blows to the head to convince the author that the book is 200 pages too long. Having a sure bestseller on your hands means that, from a financial point of view, the book is never too long; but that's not necessarily true from an aesthetic standpoint.

(COUGHstephenKingCOUGH)

Also, I mean, usually when an author has more time in production, there is more time for the editor to reach the threshold number of hammer-blows to the head to convince the author that the book is 200 pages too long.

I wonder how long Foucault's Pendulum was in production.

Visiting Flannery O'Connor's Georgia - in the Times, so read it quick before it slips behind the archive.

JZ sent that to me today. Very worth reading if you're a fan.

Who can tell me which author wrote (in a poem about a poem) "If you had watched me write it, I would have hit you, POW!" I'm probably not quoting it accurately which might explain why I haven't been able to find it all these years.

Thanks for the style instructions, y'all!

I read "Moon Called" by Patricia Briggs last night, and thought it pretty good. Good enough that I will also read the next one. I like the heroine, Mercy, quite a lot. Good combo of comptence and realism, I think.

That is all. I just hate to see the Lit thread all mute and helpless.

I just hate to see the Lit thread all mute and helpless.

Aw!

I read The Time-Traveler's Wife last month (and loved it!) and am now starting on my program of Attempting to Better Myself by reading classics I missed somewhere along the way. I'm starting with Mrs. Dalloway, which is good but takes a little more concentration that I usually have at 11 p.m., which is when I usually get to read. Next up is something by Henry James, I think. Or possibly Great Expectations.

Try some Edith Wharton, if you're in a mood. I like her better than Henry James, except "The Turn of the Screw."

If you want to go all Old Skool classic, try "The Odyssey"

I have got to pull out my old book-on-tape (wish I had it on CD, now) of Ian McKellen reading Fagles' translation of The Odyssey.

Ooh, yum, Kathy! I might hit you up for a dub of that next fall; I teach "The Odyssey" to my seniors.