WILLIAM HORWOOD was born in Oxford in 1944 and raised on the East Kent coast - the setting for his recent acclaimed memoir The Boy with No Shoes (Headline, 2004). After seven years as a Fleet Street feature editor on the London Daily Mail his first novel, Duncton Wood, was published in 1980. The six volume Duncton Chronicles have since become a modern classic in the animal fantasy genre. His novel Skallagrigg (Penguin, 1984), based on the life of his daughter Rachel who has cerebral palsy was filmed by the BBC and won the BAFTA Film of the Year award in 1994. He fitted in four sequels to Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows between other work, including The Willows in Winter (filmed by Carlton Television). Dark Hearts of Chicago is his first fictional collaboration. He is currently working on a major new fantasy series.

HELEN RAPPAPORT was born in Bromley. After studying Russian at Leeds University, she rejected suggestions of a career in the Foreign Office and opted instead for the acting profession, appearing on TV and in films until the mid-1990s. In tandem with her acting career, from the
mid-70s she worked as a Russian translator in the theatre, collaborating
with many British playwrights on new versions of Russian plays - -
notably the entire Chekhov opus. In the early 1990s she began pursuing
her love of history and started writing, finally making the transition
from actress to writer in 1999 with her first academic book, Joseph
Stalin: A Biographical Companion (ABC-Clio, 1999). This was followed by An Encyclopedia of Women Social Reformers (ABC-Clio, 2001) and Queen Victoria: A Biographical Companion (ABC-Clio, 2003). Her first trade history book is No Place for Ladies: The Untold Story of Women in the Crimean War (Aurum Press, February 2007). She is currently working on a major new Russian history project.

Former Waterstone director Scott Pack's blog titled Me and My Big Mouth mainly about books and the publishing industry is one of the most respected and widely read on the web. Here's what happened when he did a virtual interview of William and Helen...
March 19, 2007

WELCOME TO THE BLOG AND THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS. PERHAPS I SHOULD START BY ASKING HOW THE TWO OF YOU GOT TOGETHER TO WRITE THIS BOOK?

W: We met on-line nearly three years ago and since couples benefit from a shared activity if they haven't got kids together, writing a book together seemed a good idea. We put a few suggestions to Bill Hamilton of AM Heath and it went from there.

H: After meeting and discovering we were both writers, I guess, in the first flush of lurve, we naturally thought it would be wonderful to do something creative together. Oh yes, why not write a book we thought. Hmm? little did we know all the pitfalls, stresses and strains we were letting ourselves in for. But we optimistically went ahead with our first venture - a Russian mail order bride/mafia type thriller, which would draw on William's talent as novelist and mine as a historian with a specialism in Russia. Soon after we'd written some sample material we were pre empted by a big TV series and decided to abandon the idea. As researcher, I then went in search of new ideas and came up with the something around late-nineteenth century American newspaper girls ?


HAD EITHER OF YOU READ THE OTHER'S WORK BEFORE EMBARKING UPON THIS PROJECT?

W: Er, no, not being into Women Social Reformers or Joseph Stalin. I had done something better though - breathe the same dusty but scented air as Helen at the Bodleian Library where, for fifteen years, we had both been using the Lower Reading Room, possibly even the same seat.

H: Well having read Watership Down I was vaguely aware of the Duncton books but to be honest, I'd never read any of William's work, though as soon as we did meet I read the proof copy of Boy With No Shoes and absolutely loved it. Not only that, but it struck a very personal chord for me. William and I both grew up in Kent, William by the sea, me by the Medway Estuary, in the 1950s and had the additional common bond of having suffered bullying - William at home, me at school.


AND WHY CHOOSE CHICAGO DURING THE 1890s, AS YOUR SETTING?

W: Combination of things? Helen was interested in American stunt girls of the 1890's (ie early female journalists) while I, as an economic geographer by training, have always been interested in Chicago's extraordinary growth in the second half of the nineteenth century; and, as a novelist, in the human stories that the dynamics of rapid urban change throws up. When we discovered how the whole world visited Chicago for the 1893 World's Fair (27 million people to be precise) and that crime rates went through the roof as a result it seemed logical to bring 'Helen's' stunt girl to 'my' Chicago and the novel was born.

H: As soon as we had settled on the central premise of a feisty young American newspaper girl in pursuit of a story, we then agreed that the best plan would be to tie each book (hopefully there will be a whole series of Emily Strauss stories) to a specific historical event, ranging from the 1890s to possibly as far as World War I. As soon as I started looking for dates and events Chicago 1893 shouted at me and William agreed. And once we started looking at the bibliography and fabulous visual material we were hooked. Here was a wonderful dynamic city during the Progressive Era, with a richer tale even than the well worn gangster stories located there in the 20s and 30s.

COULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BOOK TO WHET OUR APPETITE?

W and H: A nice innocent New York girl, Anna Zemeckis, goes missing in Chicago during the 1893 World's Fair. After evidence emerges she's dead her father writes in despair to Joseph Pulitzer's New York World warning other parents not to let their daughters go near Chicago. Feisty wannabe girl reporter Emily Strauss spots the potential in the story and persuades Pulitzer to send her to investigate. When she discovers Anna's still alive, Emily sets out to find her and bring her home. Suddenly the social, economic and urban maelstrom that is Chicago becomes a very dangerous place indeed as the 'dark hearts' of Chicago target both women and set out to kill them?

HOW DID THE WRITING PROCESS WORK? WHO DID WHAT?

W: Well it certainly worked: after the initial six months of development to contract stage the book took less than a year to deliver. I wrote the first draft in batches and Helen edited, commented, added, and sent them back. Morning, noon and night we argued and debated each twist and turn, our separate egos having to yield to the remorseless logic of the other's critique. Bit by slow bit it became easier as we found the voice we wanted, which was different from either of our own. Not unlike putting two (superb, of course) single malt whiskies together to produce a (wonderful, of course) commercial blend. Towards the end I was writing the draft much faster and more loosely and Helen editing with much for freedom and confidence. Who did what? We both did bits of everything with me starting the process and Helen finishing it.

H: Initially we read and talked a lot about Emily, the plot and some of the major characters. William went away and drafted some early chapters, most of which got binned because the story line and the emphasis morphed very rapidly. Having discussed the overall idea with our agent Bill Hamilton, we then worked up a first 16,000 word chunk. Fundamentally, Helen collects and compiles the research material, bibliography etc. and feeds stuff to William - though he reads independently as well around the particular things that interest him. We endlessly discuss the research material and refine the remit of the research. Meanwhile, William writes a draft and passes chunks over to me which I edit, cut, expand and rewrite and then hand back. I was pretty timid at first but as we picked up the pace and got into a working method I became more and more ruthless and intervened far more in the text. After initial passes by each of us the material would go back and forth several more times till we were happy with the end product. But the revisions and refinements were never ending. Even after delivering the book to Random we then decided the denouement wasn't strong enough and went and re-wrote the last ten chapters.

DID THAT PROCESS LEAD TO ANY CLASHES OF PERSONALITY OR STYLE?

W: The personality clashes were monumental, Helen being one of the most unreasonable and irritating people I have ever met?and me being the same to her. Seriously, there was a six week bust up two months into the writing but somehow we kept talking - and suddenly the characters, like those in Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author positively demanded we got back together and told their story.

H: Of course. Many, some very intense and fraught. We were on a very steep learning curve - not just getting to know each other, within a relationship - which added another sometimes difficult dimension to the writing process - but also we were finding our way in terms of maximising on our individual talents within the book and learning to live with and accept each other's often infuriating idiosyncrasies - personal, emotional and stylistic. There are hundreds of examples e.g. William would get demented at my use of 'And' at the beginning of a sentence and my tendency to what he called 'girly' turns of phrase; I meanwhile, would ruthlessly cut some of his overly emotional, three-hanky stuff and veto any gratuitous use of violence.


D WHO GOT THE FINAL SAY?

W: I think I did. Someone had to have it. You can't decide creative things by committee. But the question is hypothetical because it rarely if ever happened that way.

H. Actually, I think any differences were always ultimately resolved by a democratic decision - albeit arrived at sometimes after rows and stompings off and days of disgruntlement with each other. I do not think that William, even though he is a very strong willed alpha male, ever totally imposed his will over me - though he frequently tried!. This is because I was equally stubborn in my views and my passions. The only way we could get the book right in the end was by means of endless discussion, heated debate and negotiation between two people with often very different and strongly held points of view.


WHAT WAS THE HIGHLIGHT OF WRITING THIS BOOK FOR YOU?

W: The realization that a writer's life does not always have to be a solitary and largely unsupported grind - a thought that first occurred to me on our first wonderful trip together to Chicago.

H: Undoubtedly it was learning a whole new way of working with narrative. It has taught me as a historian to be far more 'visual' in my writing, to move away from a slavish devotion to fact and a style of rather 'academic' writing and set my creative mind free in finding newer, more imaginative ways with historical narrative. I am certain it will have a huge influence on my approach to my next history project (currently out to publishers for consideration). Working with William has freed me up as a historical writer and shown me that you can write about real things in a far more lyrical way to engage the reader.


AND WILLIAM, DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING FROM WORKING WITH A WRITING PARTNER?

W: Lots, but not what others might expect. Being ex-Fleet street I had long since stopped being temperamental about my words. Most of us improve with being edited. Helen taught me better research techniques and that I occasionally write not only badly, but real-life drivel. I - or rather we together - learnt that plotting a thriller is a very different thing than writing fantasy or history and intellectually very challenging.

NOW THAT YOUR NOVEL IS ABOUT TO HIT THE SHELVES, WHAT ARE YOUR FUTURE PLANS?

W: We're working on the next Emily Strauss novel together. It has already been sold to Hutchinson.. Separately I'm working on a major new fantasy series.

H: I feel I have a lot of catching up to do having come to writing relatively late. I spent far too long as an out of work actress and regret that, even though I was at least working as a translator in the theatre from time to time. There certainly will be another Emily Strauss novel with William, as well as my own history title as No 2 is already contracted. But these first two were a financial gamble for us because we felt so passionate about the project that we were prepared to accept an unfashionably low advance. Now, if these first two take off and establish a following then if we are to agree to do more it will only be if we get what a modern Emily Strauss would call 'adequate compensation'. That said, collaborating offers a refreshing break from the normal isolation of writing and we particularly enjoy going to places and doing the research trips to together . But William has a lot more novels in his head and I have history books in mine too. Ideally we would like to keep the collaboration going, whilst simultaneously continuing with our own very different projects - but somewhere in between, first and foremost, we need a long holiday in the sun.

AND FINALLY, IF YOU COULD RECOMMEND ONE BOOK EACH FOR READERS OF THIS BLOG TO ADD TO THEIR LIBRARIES, WHAT WOULD THEY BE?

W: I prefer to name two, a fiction and one non-fiction. My fiction is Patrick White's Tree of Man; my non-fiction Edmund Gosse's Father and Son. Both are classics of their kind which I read at the right time for my own development as a person and writer. They changed my life.

H: Only one is impossible - it means choosing between fiction and non-fiction, but if I really have to come down to one book that others might have overlooked then it is A. J. A. Symons The Quest for Corvo, a ground-breaking literary biography-cum quest-cum detective story that in 1934 turned conventional biography on its head. It's a compulsive read. Frederick Rolfe aka Baron Corvo was the most elusive of subjects and the miracle of this book is how Symons got to the real man and the real story by the most fascinating and gripping of circuitous routes. A brilliant but forgotten classic. Something for the Friday Project?

As for fiction - it has to be George Eliot's Middlemarch - a massive, compelling work of genius, nothing less.