All I changed for me was the setting. I just stripped a little of the deliberate cross-genre weirdness, made things a little more stable in the background. Basically, the main difference is that he can compare this one to George R R Martin, Scott Lynch or Steven Erikson to his sales team, rather than a writer they didn’t want more off, which in my case was China. My tone and approach to story are pretty similar.

But the bottom line is story. Tell a good story. Yep, definitions are for those critics, and for discussions far away from the shop floor. Just wonderful writing, and a great idea told well…

I guess what I’m questioning is NW as a useful term. I’ve followed the debate elsewhere – and for pity’s sake let’s not get into that here! – but it seems to me that its use usually muddies waters rather than clarifies anything.

Perhaps a better question from me would be this. What is the difference between the books that Peter at Macmillan has bought from you and the book you were writing before your agent told you to try a different approach? Alternatively, what did you need to change as a writer to get published? (I’m not trying to get you to admit that you’ve sold your soul or anything.)

The reason I ask is that I read widely for work and in more narrowly defined areas for pleasure. Readability and a good hook are the two elements that I require from the books I choose to read – certainly from an author I’ve not tried before. Of some of my NW reading several years ago it seemed to me that the writers weren’t always interested in readability and hooks (that’s an understatement made for the purposes of irony). Which is fine for short stories and for various agendas and small presses, but not for novels if you’re seeking to be published by London publishing houses.

Simply put: definitions don’t matter if the writing and the hook are good enough. I’m guessing you disagree …

Colin