« May 02, 2005 | Main | May 04, 2005 »

May 03, 2005

revelations, redux, revised, reposted (due to technical difficulties)

It occurs to me, maybe later than it should have, that there may be a way to put my worries about the future of the Wilderness series to rest, and thus to make the writing of the fifth book much easier (at least in some ways).

Here's my idea: this isn't the last book. I don't have to resolve every story line, answer every question, and bring every character to a place where I can let them go. I let this book develop the way it needs to develop, which may mean (brace yourselves) a fairly narrow focus on one subset of the characters. But that's okay. Because I will write another book that does bring everything to a close. Who will publish this book, and how -- that's up in the air. Maybe Bantam. Maybe not; maybe I will write it without a contract. And at this moment, that feels to me like a wonderful idea.

It may be that the realities of the way publishing works require me to focus on other kinds of novels in the next few years, and that the sixth novel in the Wilderness series will become something I work on for myself. Which would be very liberating. I could play with form, I could experiment with some ideas I've had about what these novels might be if I had more latitude in terms of graphics and historical notes. I could do all this on my own schedule.

So this is what I have to do: (1) Finish Queen of Swords by October, and let it be what it wants to be; stop worrying about making it the last book in the series, because it won't be; (2) Get settled with the new book contract for contemporary novels, and set up a schedule for those. I am looking forward to this, and have a lot of interesting ideas to work with. (3) Make notes, as they occur to me, on what I would like the last novel in the Wilderness series to be like. Not what a publisher would want; not what the editor would like or the marketing people would find sellable, but what I want it to be. The shape of the story, and how it will look. Set aside worries about contractual obligations; assume I will be handling this as an independent project.

This feels right, and liberating, and energizing. Back to work.

11:39 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

in which verbal asks big questions, which I try to answer

in the comments to this post verbal asks::

Here's my question for you: do you think that people do not regard your work as literature? When people talk about good books, do you feel that they're holding good books up in contrast to yours? Do you feel that your work is not good, or great, or noble?

I ask this because once I wanted to be a poet and now I work in marketing. The literature I produce is almost always under 500 words, ending in an exclamation point. I am pretty sure it is not great literature that will be remembered through the ages. And I am afraid of judgement from others-- and from myself-- that it's not good enough. So I want to know how another writer who is avowedly outside the high-art business feels about their work. (I think I know how you feel that other people feel about it, and that you are angry about their condescension).

I'm going to break this up into parts, which may or may not work, but it's the only way I can think to proceed:

1. do you think that people do not regard your work as literature?

I think most people regard Homestead as literature. My experience is that people consider Homestead high-art, and the Wilderness novels as something else. Commercial, for lack of a better word.

2. When people talk about good books, do you feel that they're holding good books up in contrast to yours?

Sometimes, sure. Of course. Because my work will not appeal to everybody, and that's fine. There are tons of novels out there that I think are better than mine, for whatever reason. For example: Byatt's Possession is a better historical novel than any of mine in terms of the beauty of the prose, the characterizations, the quality of the recreation of the historic setting, and (this is important) the fact that there are two damn good love stories in this one novel, and an incredibly complex, well done, multilayered plot.

On the other hand, in my personal view, Lake in the Clouds (which I consider to be the strongest of my historical novels in terms of prose, narration, characterization, historical tone/recreation, and plot) is better than many of the highly praised literary novels out there.

3. Do you feel that your work is not good, or great, or noble?

This is tough. I think some of my work is very good. I don't know how to define noble, so I won't try to answer that. As far as 'great' is concerned -- I'd need to qualify my answer in a variety of ways. If you mean "lasting" then time will tell. If you mean simply "good" -- I think I have written some great characters, and some great scenes, and that some of my overarching themes or plots are great in the sense that something pretty big was accomplished.

4. (this question was implied, and not asked directly): Are you afraid of criticism of your work?

Yes, and no. I'm never put off by people who say: sorry, it doesn't work for me. I can say the same thing about many books and authors, including (shock, horror) James Joyce. I am put off by people who automatically dismiss my work without reading it or considering it in any depth because they have preconceived notions going in. I get a great deal of mail that starts like this: I don't usually read historicals (or historical romance, or romance) but I took a chance, and... . I have had people say to me: I haven't read your work because, well, it's romance, right?

This always puts me in a quandry. This is what I say, usually:

You can call it romance, if you like. I have no objection to the term; all of the novels have some kind of love story intertwined with the historical setting and (for lack of a better word) megaplot. My work is not marketed as straight romance -- and in fact, the romance people don't really accept me as one of their own, which leaves me out in the cold, not really fitting in anywhre -- but sure, call it romance if you like. I think of my historical novels as just that, historicals heavy on character and story both. What I try to do is tell a really good story, and to write it well. If you think that might interest you, give it a try.

I can turn the questions you raise back to you and ask, as a matter of pure curiosity, what you think of Gone with the Wind. Is it literature, or commercial fiction, or both? I realize this is a really controversial question, but I think it gets to the heart of what bothers me about the tendency we have to want to cubbyhole fiction.

03:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack