After taking a deep breath, I read through the first complete
draft of the monograph. There are now various files labelled ‘editing’ on my
computer, which explain what needs to be done to the book text: which sources
need to be incorporated into paragraph x, which are flabby sections in need of
cutting, which chapters need to have parts swapped around. There is also a
slightly anxiety-inducing document entitled: ‘bibliography: things that still
need to be read.’
Before I settle down to an intense spate of book editing
and further reading, however, I’m taking a week to read through all my notes. I
had always planned to do this with my first book, but ran out of time. Elusive Church
has, however, been conceived and written over a rather longer period than my
doctorate-book, and the argument has evolved significantly, probably crystallising most fully in my mind as I wrote the last chapter. It’s a bit like
time-lapse photography: I’ve read scores and scores of articles and books on
the Reformation and late medieval church since 2007, but each one has been read
in light of my (ever developing) thinking about my monograph at a given moment
in time. Re-reading all the notes now ensures that all this secondary reading
has finally all been considered through the same lens, i.e. the argument as it
exists in the full, latest draft of the book, in something very close to its
final form (I hope).
Going through my mainly handwritten notes is both laborious,
alarmingly slow, and stimulating. It’s a good way of testing the book argument:
what in the secondary literature seems to corroborate it, and what should give
me pause and encourage me to think through a particular issue more carefully. I’m
adding all these extra bits of information & thoughts into the monograph as
marginal comments. It feels tuning a machine, or like carefully painting on layer
after layer of evidence. The trick is to make sure this process gently enhances
the book and its argument, and doesn’t sink it beneath a dead weight of detail…