Kane & Abel by Jeffrey Archer -- OK for a do-over?
Read Streeter Gail Farrelly, an author who lives in New York, was struck by the news that Jeffrey Archer plans to rewrite and re-issue a best-selling novel. We asked her to write about literary do-overs. Here's her guest post:
There’s renovation for old houses, rehabilitation for addicted psyches, and nips and tucks for less-than-perfect bodies. Is it time for reconstructive surgery on old novels?
One publisher thinks so. The Guardian reports that, in mid-October, Pan Macmillan will be releasing an updated version of Archer’s 1979 best selling novel, Kane and Abel. Here’s how the book (the plot's the same in the revision, it's just the style of writing that's updated) is described by The Guardian: "It follows the lives of Boston money man William Lowell Kane and penniless Polish immigrant Abel Rosnovski, born on the same day, through the first world war, the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the bitter rivalry that develops between them.” Timeless themes, no? And particularly relevant in a 2009 world in a financial crisis.
According to The Guardian, “The rewrite, which took Archer nine months . . . saw him slashing around 40,000 words from the original novel, and putting back in around 27,000, leaving himself with a leaner, shorter novel in which the pace increases from breakneck to warp speed.”
But do we really need "warp" speed? Also, I wonder how smart it is to give a novelist the right of "do-over." I'm reminded of growing up in the Bronx and playing a game of hopscotch in which every once in a while a kid demanded a do-over. But in the case of Kane and Abel, we're talking about a book that's sold 34 million copies worldwide and was a #1 New York Times best seller. Maybe it's better to leave well enough alone?
For me, "well enough" translates to "absolutely fabulous." It's one of the best novels I've ever read. With the right publicity and a renewed sales push to celebrate its 30th anniversary, perhaps it could have sold tons more copies, even without a do-over. For a novelist, though, it must be a fantasy fulfilled to get the opportunity to improve upon an earlier work. In a sense, that makes every work a work-in-progress, since it could be rewritten and improved at a later date.
The Guardian article concludes by pointing out that the author's do-over act may not end with Kane and Abel: "Archer may also take a fresh look at the book's sequel, The Prodigal Daughter, which tells the story of the feud from the perspective of Kane and Abel's children." I especially enjoyed this last sentence: "Whether he'll also provide a new perspective on his prison diaries wasn't mentioned."
While Archer is pondering future revisions, I’m wondering: Are you interested in reading do-overs of novels? Do you have suggestions for specific novels to be revised?
Comments
My gut reaction is no, but then I remembered that Stephen King basically did a do-over with "The Stand," and that book is amazing. (Although to be fair, I haven't read the original version, just the re-edited one.)
I just hope books don't become like DVDs where six months after a title is released, there's a super special edition director's cut.
Posted by: Kelly | June 24, 2009 8:04 AM
I loved Kane and Abel when I read it 30 years ago.
As I read this, I felt that it tied into a conversation ongoing at a non-Sun book blog where we are creating a list of formerly-favorite writers who seem to have run out of plotlines, but for some reason continue to churn out weak stories.
Perhaps Mr. Archer has hit the wall.
Posted by: Eve | June 24, 2009 9:49 AM
Kelly, thanks for mentioning "The Stand." It's been discussed on the Amazon Discussion Forums that the Kindle edition of this book has the text-to-speech feature turned off; and this is ironic, since King has macular degeneration and one would think that he'd be more sensitive to the needs of vision-impaired people.
Eve, I know you're right, but I hate to even THINK about the possibility of Archer's hitting a wall. Even more impressive than his novels, I think, are his short stories -- just about the most creative and inventive that I've ever read. Maybe he's just taking a break. At least that's what I'm hoping.
Posted by: Gail Farrelly | June 24, 2009 1:46 PM
My gut reaction is also no do-overs, but I'm not sure that's always the right answer. I wonder what an established writer might do with his/her earlier works, with the knowledge and skill that they've accumulated. Would the books be better or worse? It could be good (The Stand's re-issue was terrific) or it could be bad (I would hate to see what Anne Rice would do to her early works, now that she thinks she doesn't need an editor). And after all, non-fiction books are updated and re-issued as new material comes to light, why not fiction? I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea (considering the way Hollywood pumps out remakes of remakes, I would hate to have the book world taking their cues), but in some cases it might be really interesting.
Posted by: Lisa | June 24, 2009 2:53 PM
Lisa -- I, too, am suspicious of writers who think they don't need editors. Yikes!
One of my sisters, who had read my post, e-mailed me, "I also loved the book, but would probably want to re-read the old one rather than buy a re-written edition." I feel the same. And it made me think that I don't know if I'd EVER bother to read a do-over of a novel I read a long time ago. If I didn't like it the first time, I'm not sure I'd be willing to give the author another chance. And if I did like it, then why not go back and read the original, rather than a revision.
Anyway, I think the publishing industry will be watching how successful the Archer re-write turns out to be. If it's successful, it may start a new trend.
Posted by: Gail Farrelly | June 24, 2009 9:24 PM
I too, read this book around thirty years ago and remember it well. I do not want to read an update or rewrite. If I want to read the novel "Kane and Able" I will reread the original. I hope this is not a new trend. Hollywood has done this with "Oceans Eleven", "The Poseiden Adventure" and "The Mighty Joe Young" Although the special effects were better, the story and acting was not as good as the originals.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2009 10:25 AM