Behind the Words: First Time Solo

First Time Solo was my first book, published in 2014. It went out of print in 2017 when Freight Books went the way of the dodo but I hold out hope that it and my other two Freight-era novels will one day get an official reissue. I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently and wondering what I would do with these books if I had the chance to republish them. FTS was my first book and therefore is, in many ways, my weakest, my most immature. This isn’t just me being modest or being the typical artist who hates everything in the past (although that is part of it - my best book is always my next one). In preparing an extract for today I went through a lot of the book and kind of wish I hadn’t. There are so many places where I can turn to my younger self and say “I can see what you were trying to do there, but how about if you did it this way?”

Which leads me to this question: is it okay for writers to revisit and rewrite previously published texts? It’s reasonably common with poetry and short stories, where early version published in journals are reworked before appearing in collections. WH Auden famously spent his life reworking and rewriting old ideas, trying to get them exactly right. Likewise we’re all comfortable with the idea of non-fiction works having multiple editions, updated as new information emerges, or as a new audience appears. With novels though, we are less comfortable.

I first came across the idea when Alan Bissett reworked his debut novel Boyracers for the 10th anniversary reissue, a move perfectly understandable but which caused much discussion among fans of the original. Perhaps with novels it’s more akin to the remastered editions of classic albums. Is the Scott Litt’s 25th anniversary remaster of REM’s Monster better than the original? (No, but it is worth hearing). Are the Beatles remasters by Giles Martin better? (Often yes, since the technology can open up things lost over the years, enhancing the originals). This shouldn’t really worry me since FTS never had the kind of sales Abbey Road and Monster enjoyed, or even Boyracers, but the question affects all writers - is the published text the final word on things?

Honestly, I don’t know if I’d be comfortable republishing FTS without rewriting it. Some of the issues are solved by a simple copy edit, trimming sentences, clarifying thought, avoiding inevitable habitual repetition. Some problems are accidental inaccuracies, particularly with reference to military aspects, that have been pointed out to me by helpful readers. Some are structural - I don’t like where it starts, for example. It’s too obvious, too cliched: main character on train leaving home for the first time and immediately meets the guy who in many ways will be his antagonist. I could introduce Joe in a much more sophisticated way. Then there are subplots that never really went anywhere.

FTS was written as the middle part of a trilogy, and while the first part (set during the Spanish Civil War) never got anywhere, the final part was half written when FTS was published. There are threads in FTS that were going to be picked up later (particularly the aspects dealing with Jack’s inadvertent racism and racial bias, touched upon in a few scenes but never properly developed) which never were. These jaggy bits haven’t been smoothed with the passage of time. So is it okay for me to overhaul the book to this extent. At what point would it no longer be FTS? At what point would it be worthwhile for someone who read the original to pick up a copy of the rerelease? Not enough and it’s a scam, too much and it’s a different book.

As I was mulling this over, Ben Okri announced that he’d rewritten his novel Starbook (2008) in order to more strongly emphasise themes relating to slavery because readers (particularly critics) hadn’t picked up on them first time round. This wasn’t a “you idiots didn’t get it!” rant, rather Okri framed it as a failure on his part to make his intentions clear in the text. Arguments of Barthes and the irrelevance of authorial intentions aside, I think all writers can sympathise with his thinking. For musicians, or stand up comedians, the ability to edit and rethink is built into the art form. Songs are usually performed live countless times before being recorded and released, and even when they aren’t, few fans expect the live band to faithfully recreate what’s on the record. A chorus is dropped, a solo improvised differently every night, an outro goes on for ten more minutes (or, as Neil Young puts it, just a few more chords). If a comedian gets no laughs from a piece of material, they will recast it, change the word order, change the tone of voice, the gestures, the placing in the set, until it works. They get instant feedback and use it.

Not so the novelist. Beyond a few beta readers and editors, the first time people see a text is once it’s published at which point it’s too late to change anything. When reviewers and readers then offer suggestions they are sometimes great ideas but completely useless. You can’t recall the books, make changes and reissue it. You can take the essence and incorporate that into your next book, but that particular instance has sailed.

Except at times like this, we can. FTS is out of print. If it makes a comeback, do I really have to keep everything as it was in 2014? Fixing a comma is surely fine. But how about writing a new chapter one? I honestly don’t know. As may be clear from this article I’m leaning towards rewriting, drastically, but I feel uncomfortable with it, like I’m committing an artistic sin. What do you all think? I’d be interested in hearing from people who read FTS as well as those who haven’t. Have other writers done this, and to what reaction? I’d love to chat this through in the comments.