THE MAKING OF "BUT FOR THE LOVERS"---NOW IT CAN BE TOLD

In the United States, the relationship between between a book author and his publishing editor can sometimes be fraught with a lot of ambivalence; love- hate in some cases where the author may not want to budge from his passionate belief in his own writing. If one were to read letters between Thomas Wolfe, for instance. Or Hemingway and other American authors, one can have a glimpse of how these two entities dealt with each other.

In the Relationship between Editors and Authors: A Lit Review, Kelly Shackelford describes this even more strongly: 

"The stereotypical relationship between editors and authors is one of antagonism. Editing seems to naturally produce conflict between editors and authors as they vie for authority over each piece of writing. Often, editors feel unappreciated and believe that authors are over-sensitive to changes, while authors feel threatened and believe that editors are taking away ownership of their writing. No one is surprised when the two sides disagree, and their conflicts have become a source of humor." In the case of Wilfrido D. Nolledo and Hal Scharlatt, considered during his time as one of the best editors in New York, the kind of relationship between them in the course of Hal's editing of BUT FOR THE LOVERS perhaps was a rarity. Scharlatt was, in 1967 an editor of one of the leading, if not the leading, publishing houses in New York, the Random House Publishing Co. He was the one assigned to handle a thriller book collaboratively authored by Wilfrido and a British author, Stephen Gray Wilfrido had met in the Iowa Writers' Workshop. The two authors submitted through John Hawkins, a literary agent who visited the University of Iowa in search of potential authors to sell in New York. I remember having read Scharlatt's letter (I'll dig some more into Wilfrido's file for the original) praising the writing (as most editors are wont to do as a prelude to the ax) and saying it just wasn't right for them. He added, however, in a p.s. note asking who wrote this and that chapter the difference in style being so obvious. Upon learning who authored the ones that impressed him, he asked if Wilfrido had a novel of his own. He wanted to take a look at it. Wilfrido sent three chapters of BUT FOR THE LOVERS through John and on the basis of those three chapters alone, Hal made an offer to publish it, sending the contract through Agent Hawkins who was thrilled that the first big  publishing house that had taken a look at it accepted it outright. In New York, publishers or editors and even agents would not give a writer the time of day if they were not unusually excited over a manuscript submitted. In the contract was even a stipulation for an OPTION  for the second novel Wilfrido may write. An Option gives the publishing house priority to read it over all other publishing houses. Throughout all this, Robert Coover, multi-awarded American author, who was then a visiting professor handling the Creative Writing Workshop at the University of Iowa which Wilfrido was attending under a Fulbright scholarship, provided mentoring that proved very valuable in validating Wilfrido's writing skills and his gift of language. Hal later had to move on to E.P. Dutton Publishing, another leading publishing company in New York. He made it a condition in his new job, though, that he would bring with him BUT FOR THE LOVERS, and requested Random House to allow him to do just that. That was how E.P. Dutton came to be the final publisher. Anyway, I hope to post here a few excerpts from the letter exchanges between Hal and Wilfrido. The letters have prints already fading and hopefully can be included in a future publication before they completely get obliterated with age. In the meantime, let me just quote here what I think are the most intense arguments between the author and editor. It appears that Hal had not red-penciled the manuscript at all but just typed  in a separate sheet what he wanted cut or changed with his strong and valid, one must admit, arguments as an editor. Wilfrido, on the other hand, argued back point by point in what appears like a battle of wits between the two. 12 March, 1970 Dear Willie, In the largest sense, I want to reiterate my commitment to BUT FOR THE LOVERS and to emphasize how extraordinary I think is its song, its language, its incredible fusion of myth, history and comedy. Above all, it is a feat of language, an ambition on such large scale that your accomplishment is simply awesome. Having read the entire manuscript four times, I want to once again direct my remarks to the extremely difficult question of cutting and thereby tightening the manuscript for one purpose: to keep the reader interested, not purely in the language itself but in the events of the novel and the condition of its characters... a fusion between history and man...  ......... Pages 125     The story of Vanoye should be a separate chapter. I want to suggest cutting pages 140-157 to       139     completely. Willie, we especially have to consider that the reader is deep within the novel by                      now and there's a definite impatience stemming from the continual detailing of minor events. Wilfrido's Answer Pages 125-139 The next three paras will be crucial, Hal.  And please, please, do not take them as the outpourings of a spoiled poet, whatever that is. Pages 140-157 contain the hemorrhage scene of Hidalgo as prefaced by Alma's "menstrual months."  I realize that this is not easy reading; nevertheless, this section is a set-up: in effect, the girl is spitting out the Spanish Colonial experience. Her monthly period comprises, in terms of history, four centuries of Hispanic subjugation. Four hundred years of Spain, Hal! And all I'm asking for Hidalgo is his one chapter in court. If Hidalgo's remembrances strike you as unreadable, they nonetheless contribute to his image as the Don Quijote of Ojos Verdes. We Filipinos have had to wait centuries for the privilege of killing our "spiritual father," and Hidalgo de Annuncio, like James Bond, is unkillable. For me to cut this part would be an act of cowardice, personally. And won't we be doing the reader an injustice by presuming he can't digest such stuff? If it were simply a matter of verbiage, something I could cut without harming the structure of the novel, I wouldn't waste this space arguing. With the conviction that this is an integral part of Lovers, I will not spare the reader the printed anguish that my country had suffered in blood.