In
early June, I posted that Judy Healey—a friend and published author of
historical fiction—was reading “The Reluctant Spy,” a novel I’ve written that
takes place in first-century Palestine. Judy suggested that I explain unfamiliar
words, such as jasper ring and tamarisk, and clarify the difference between the
Pharisees and the Sadducees. Responding to these suggestions will take little time
or effort.
Her
bigger concern—one demanding a restructuring of the first third of the novel—was
the dynamic between two of its characters: Ephraim and Daniel. She wanted to
know the background of their dissension much earlier than I provided in the
novel. I had presented their past in several scenes sprinkled throughout the
first third of the manuscript. I hoped this would intensify tension and
suspense. That didn’t work for Judy.
While
in Minnesota recently, I enjoyed a working lunch with her. Having read only the
first third of the novel, Judy believes its main thrust is the story between
Daniel and Ephraim.
For
me, as the author, that thrust is between Ephraim and Yeshua. That’s why I
began the novel with a scene between the two of them. However, Yeshua does not
appear again with Ephraim until nearly a third of the way through the book,
when Part II begins in the Galilee. Then the story line becomes theirs. In the
latter part of the manuscript, Daniel re-emerges several times. He’s the catalyst
of the ongoing need for Ephraim to attach himself to Yeshua, a man for whom he
has only contempt.
Orchards
in the Upper Galilee.
Back
in January an editor read the manuscript and made suggestions that led to the deletion
of 9,000 words. She thought the novel was ready for publication. So after
returning from Minnesota, I was left with a conundrum: to publish the novel as
is per the editor’s counsel or to change the first third per Judy’s
recommendation.
Unable
to untie this Gordian knot, I asked a friend, who’s a prolific reader although
not of historical novels, if she would read the manuscript. I gave her a series
of questions to consider in her reading. She’s now gotten back to me. Here’s
her e-mail response:
I just finished "The Reluctant Spy" and
found it fascinating! I don't usually (almost never) read historical novels
because I generally find them to be slow. I tend to skim through the
descriptive parts and to read only the narratives thoroughly. I
determined to read every word of your book and I'm glad I did. Yours
required a lot of description in the beginning, but the pace picked up at about
page 20 and stayed strong throughout.
There
are quite a few instances of incorrect punctuation and random typos and spaces
that need to be corrected.
I
loved Ephraim’s conversations with God/Hashem.
I
felt I got a true understanding on why the characters, especially Ephraim and
Yeshua, acted as they did.
The
only suggestion I can make is to make sure you get it published!
Model of Herod’s Temple at the Israel Museum.
While my
friend’s response delights me, I’m still perplexed. Judy is a published author so her opinion sways me. And yet I
know that any reading of a third of a novel over a three-month period needs to
be taken with a grain of salt. We seldom hold the intricacies of a book in our
heads for three months when we do sporadic reading.
On
the other hand, a friend often cannot be objective even when trying hard to be.
Still, this friend has been honest with me before when something I wrote didn’t
work for her. Perhaps only those first twenty pages of the novel need
recasting.
Given
these three responses, I’m befuddled, wondering if I need to hire another professional
editor—Judy gave me the names of two who have helped her—or if I need simply to
go for publication.
As
you read this posting—in the United States or Great Britain or Australia or
wherever you are—please send me your best thoughts about this manuscript. The
truth is I’m confused, wondering if I need to continue to fish or if I should
cut bait!








