Well, we've got the book and I'm happy to be facing one of East Anglia's premier bloggers. Funny how the flat wastelands of the East of England have produced so many decent bloggers. I'm a "fen" (geddit?) of a few of them.
The general feel of the book is smooth and shiny. Considering it was produced in a week it's a fantastic achievement. How do they get these books so smooth and shiny in a week?
But seriously (God, I'm such a wag), it is a fantastic achievement by Mike and the gang who got it all together in a week and I'm chuffed to be a part of it.
Of course I've read my own contribution several times and come up with a whole host of opinions on its merits or otherwise.
"Oh God, it's shit." "It's not bad, actually." "That's not my voice at all." "Actually it's the reporting of a reasonably funny incident, told in a concise, understated way." "But it still doesn't seem like me." "And some of those sentences jar."
Is this what proper writers go through? Does Ian McEwan or Jeffrey Archer go over everything they write again and again? Is this what you call "rewriting"? If so I'm happy to keep blogging and just churn my shit out. I couldn't be doing with all that worrying about whether this or that sentence is worthy of being published. If Penguin or Puffin or Ladybird come along and say they want to publish me I'll say they can take what they like from my blogs but they can get stuffed if they think I'm going to sit around analysing and changing things. Whatcha see is whatcha get, Mr Big Publisher!