Some preliminary thoughts on Separate Identity volume 2

As someone who has been proof reading Separate Identity volume 2 for Bruce I have been invited to make some personal comments. At the time of writing I have not proof read the Afterward and the first chapter is still to be completed.

My first thought is that the book is long. That is not a criticism, but you can’t really judge it on the same terms as a commercial production. A commercial production is designed to make money, through appealing to the largest group of people who may buy it. A commercial editor would have reduced the size, and even in academic publishing I believe would have done so. It wouldn’t then be the same book but just another book in the WT history shelves. Your length and detail make it unique, even if that may discourage some potential buyers.

That is NOT a criticism, because your aim IS to cover all the details, and so the discovered details dictate the length. The only way to do it is by self-publishing, which you are doing, but here the formatting and layout (spacing, using the right size type, etc.) is very important. I have made the odd comment or two on this in proof reading, and generally this is very good, but if you don’t get this right in a self-published book it makes the whole look amateur. And that detracts from the contents. So I hope your team of proof readers spot any glitches like this, and that you don’t add material without checking after they have all finished.

You have covered yourself to a degree in the introductions by saying there is some overlap in material in chapters. And obviously with two authors writing over years and not writing in chronological order (the fact that you still have to complete the first chapter illustrates this) means you can’t help this happening a bit. But adding an occasional “who we met earlier” “as discussed in chapter x” etc. shows the book has been proof read as a whole and you are “aware” of its total contents. I think that is important to support the “professional” feel.

What do I specifically like and what not?

Let’s take the potential negative first.

Attacking the work of other authors in the same field is fair game – but personally I believe it is good to give a right of reply if the author is still active. I know from correspondence that we may not fully agree on this, and that is fair enough, but I know in my own case an “authority” saw my proposed article, disagreed, we discussed it, and while they requested not to be given a credit, they at least thanked me for being frank and fair. That was important to me. My own rule of thumb is to let people know what you are going to say about them. Just in case.

And then there are the expressed concerns about the Society not sharing archival material. As someone who knows how the Society has been burned in the past I can sympathise with their caution at times, but they seem to be more helpful now. I hope this will continue.

What have I specially liked?

I am always happy about flesh on the bones with detailed life stories, be they of the good, the bad, or the ugly. So I really enjoy the life stories, the background to individuals, be they friend or foe.

The other aspect I specially liked is that the narrative is not just America based. Obviously America features prominently – Allegheny, CTR and all that – but a lot of books seem to be so America-centric it’s as if the rest of the world outside their bubble doesn’t exist. So the foreign language field at home and then abroad is an important section of this volume, and fills a gap generally unfilled (until the recent European series started appearing).

My overall feel of the book?

Those for whom it is intended will read it, study it and enjoy it. But they are a limited audience. Rachael used to get upset about poor sales and lack of financial incentive to continue. You might cover your costs, but will never make real money from this project. But as I often say, if you want to make money – get a proper job. We want the right kind of readers and to share knowledge – and we want others to be quoting our work. (This happened to me with my other “professional” writings and it’s very gratifying, although earning some money as well did not go amiss). I am sure this will happen and has already been happening with your series of books.

Perhaps the final overall comment I can make is a feeling of disappointment – but it is not your fault. My very special interest has always been in the fragmenting – from a theological point of view all the things that happened to those who left association with CTR and the early Watch Tower Society. I particularly enjoy the lunatic fringe, like the Koreshan Unity – the tale of Cyrus Teed’s coffin getting washed out to sea makes me laugh out loud. And Albert Delmont Jones ending up buried under the freeway like a gangster has a sort of poetic justice about it. But alas, none of that is in this volume 2.

It is reserved no doubt for volume 3.

I hope you live long enough to write it.

I hope I live long to read it.