‘Just one thing to make clear,’ she said, ‘I’d be astonished if any agent or publisher thought it was a good idea to write a trilogy on Katharine Susannah Prichard.’
I was hoping for something more like: I would be astonished if any agent or publisher turned down this manuscript. But I hired my editor for a manuscript assessment because of her frank and fearless advice and industry insight. I was glad to hear she considered it well written, but what stood out for her was my premise that the early life of KSP was worth an entire book. Did I provide some startling justification for this later in the manuscript? Did I have a better example of a similar undertaking other than Judith Wright? No and no.
I find long biographies overwhelming to read. I would like to spend three hundred pages in someone’s life at a time, but rarely six hundred, let alone nine hundred. Yet if I liked a biography enough, I would read two sequels over time. Fiction series are encouraged, a trilogy following the life and times of fictional characters. Why not for biography? Yet I can’t change the publishing industry. Off the top of my head, the examples of partial biographies I have found (some of them series) are William Shakespeare, Franz Kafka, T.S. Eliot, and Winston Churchill. I cannot make a strong claim that KSP belongs on that list. There is the early life of Judith Wright, published in 2016, a figure KSP could more easily bear comparison to. But I don’t think that book was the start of a publishing trend and nor was it the first of a trilogy.
The risk in submitting my early-life biography now is that it closes future doors for me if I do finish a complete biography – usually there’s only one opportunity to submit a manuscript to each agent or publisher. In addition, I don’t think I can cope with the rejection at this point.
The alternative, which fills me with a mix of despair and determination, is to spend the next two years (at least) writing the rest of KSP’s life. The scale is different – instead of 90k words times three, it will be more like 150k to 200k total. Part two (1919-1933), 60k; part three (1933-1969), another 60k. Not that the word count is a true indication of the work involved, but I will be dropping the crazy comprehensiveness of at least my first two years, when I thought that a great biographer would get to the bottom of every small mystery or clue.
I was desperate for my biography come out soon. It’s thirteen years since my first book was published and it’s painful to contemplate more years in the wilderness. But impatience has mainly caused me problems in my writing career and perhaps it’s time I tried its opposite.
Nathan I can understand how keen you are to do a perfect job, but as a complete outsider I think your editor is right. I own eight biographies of Miles Franklin but one of the things I value over those 1500 or so pages is differences in perspective. Almost certainly the safest option will be an entire life in 500pp. Though you might always write the early KSP as a novel and take it from there. Good luck whatever you choose!
LikeLike
Thanks Bill, I suspect she’s right too. Better to hear the reality now than later!
LikeLike
Turn it into one book, I think. I know it will take you years to write, but I bet UWA wouldn’t dare not publish it when it’s ready…
LikeLike
Whoops, this is Guy Salvidge. Not logged in apparently 😎
LikeLike
Thanks Guy! It is certainly looking like the way to go.
LikeLike
Well, I’m so fond of literary biographies and so intrigued by KSP that I probably would end up reading all three volumes if they were available, but if there’s a strong risk that a three-volume bio might never hit the shelves, I think you should take your editor’s advice.
I’ve read two long (500+ pages) lit bios: Jill Roe’s of Miles Franklin and Kathleen Jones’ of Katherine Mansfield. They were excellent, but note that both of those were of higher profile authors (in the sense that both are still widely read today). Both were obviously marketable from a publisher’s PoV because of appealing to both academic and general interest readers. The other lit bios that I’ve read have all been between 200 and 300 pages and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what your editor steers you towards.
Which brings you not only to the problem of what to leave out, and also what t do with what’s been left out. (Apart from depositing it with either your State library or (preferably) the NLA. So I think Bill’s suggestion is a good one: write us a digestible bio of KSP so that it gets published because both you and she deserve that – and then write a clever genre bending bit of creative nonfiction with the remaining material.
Don’t be discouraged, I would so dearly love to read this bio one day!
LikeLike
Yes, better to be wiser now, I think. Thankfully the editor thought a 500 page (200k words) biography of KSP would be fine – just not a trilogy. The comprehensive account of her early years will still form most of my PhD.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nathan, as much as I would absolutely love to read a biographical trilogy about KSP, perhaps it is better to condense ‘the life & work’ into one volume. Don’t give up the project. I can’t wait to read whatever it is that you decide to write. KSP deserves a well-researched, thoughtful biography — please, please, keep writing.
Denise
LikeLike
I was thinking D.H. Lawrence was another one to add to your list, but I’m not sure I’m right about that—perhaps the multi-volume work I’m thinking of was collected letters? Anyway, I think all the advice you’ve been given here is sound, Nathan, although I absolutely understand the desire to be comprehensive. Just remember: nothing is wasted. I don’t just mean that you might be able to recycle unused material into something else. Authenticity, believability, psychological depth, insight—they all come from the enormous weight of unseen, often unused research that goes into your writing brain and works to create a life that will live on the page for readers. Something amazing will come from all of this.
LikeLike
Amanda, I love this insight of yours – ‘Authenticity, believability, psychological depth, insight—they all come from the enormous weight of unseen, often unused research’ – thank you. Worth holding onto when it comes time to prune. And I won’t even have to lose that much – I’m thinking only another 20k (pruned 15k already!). Re: DH Lawrence – I am just going to be looking up his biographies this week, as I’ve got to KSP’s nearly-not-quite meeting with him in 1922. And your memory turns out to be correct – it seems as well as Jeffrey Meyers’ famous one-volume bio, there is a three-volume Cambridge biography. Interestingly, each volume is written by a different biographer. Alas, DHL doesn’t really help my case for a trilogy, as again KSP can’t compete. Which she would have hated me saying, given how she came to resent comparisons to him.
LikeLike
Ah, yes, it was the Cambridge one that I saw in the British Library last year. It irks me that KSP can’t compete, but you are of course right.
Good luck with the pruning, and with everything else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Denise! Maybe this will actually help me get to the end sooner.
LikeLike
Probably adding nothing to the comments above, Nathan, I think there is virtue in pruning to one volume. I really admired the comprehensive quality of Paul Mariani on Gerard Manley Hopkins, in which Mariani nearly describes every day of his life, but keeping the narrative driving forward, he finishes up with 440 pages, and it was a fascinating read. (Admittedly Hopkins only lived into his forties…. and he was celibate, and therefore single…) I’ve just posted my review of the bio (https://thoughtsprovocateurs.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/an-intense-life/)
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a much better age for a subject to live to! Just going to read your review.
LikeLiked by 1 person