" /> storytelling: May 31, 2006 Archives

« May 29, 2006 | Main | June 1, 2006 »

May 31, 2006

voices in my head

When I was writing Homestead, there was always a significant pause between chapters. The reason for this pause was that I had to figure out which of the voices in my head would get to speak up first. Each chapter is written from another woman's perspective, and each of those women were very adamant about the role they would play.

The one exception was Bengat's Olga. It took a very long time to realize that the only way for her part of the story to be told was in the form of a letter. She didn't want to speak to me, she wanted to talk to her husband. So she did.

I have a similar situation in Pajama Jones. Julia Darrow is a woman with a story that needs to be told, and she's really particular about the who and how and when. She won't tell it all at once, and she'll only tell it to one particular character. The problem is that often I misstep in the manner of telling it.

You realize there are so many ways for characters to share information. They can talk to each other in direct dialogue; their dialogue can be indirect (which is sometimes far more powerful); they can remember something in detail in a vivid you-are-there present tense flashback (something that works for my characters quite often). Or some combination of all these. Or the author can take over and play omniscient being. This is something I very rarely do.

When Julia is ready to tell part of her story, for me it's like walking on eggshells. I start the scene and if she isn't comfortable with the way it's going, she balks. Just shuts down. Closes herself in her room. This is a traumatic story she's telling and I feel sometimes like I'm coaxing it out of her, or maybe more like I'm directing somebody who is both author and actor. I say, okay, you want to tell this in your own words and she says, NO. Not directly.

So I write and rewrite and rewrite it again, and finally she settles down and allows the story to move ahead.

I know that other writers experience this in a similar way. Not all writers, but at least some. It's very disconcerting to be negotiating such delicate matters with somebody who lives in your own head. Because they never go away, not completely. They'll pop out at the most inconvenient moment to reveal an awkward detail that can't be ignored, or to simply shut things down if they are unhappy. They care not a fig for practical matters. Deadline is not in the character's vocabulary. But it's in mine. I've got a month to finish this novel. Will I make it?

Doesn't feel like it, just at this moment. Or so Julia informs me.

And that's today's post from the land of split personalities.

writ large

Via Fuse #8 (and sometime maybe she'll explain to us what Fuse #8 means) an interesting essay on the art of the book review by Brian Doyle who is the editor of Portland Magazine. This essay itself is written in a grandiose, generous voice by somebody who can poke fun at himself:

... or meeting a writer of startling grace and power whose stories stitch and braid into your heart -- a Helen Garner, a Haruki Murakami. Or meeting again, with a shiver of warm recognition, writers who mattered to you once and who leap right back to the top of that teetering pile of books on your bedside table: Willa Cather, Robert Louis Stevenson, George Orwell, Eudora Welty. Or, another grinning low pleasure, reading a review and recognizing that brassy pub-argument voice, cocksure about writerly rankings -- a voice I drift into myself, I confess, when I insist, banging my tankard, that Twain is the greatest of all American writers, and Bellow the greatest of modern ones, and Stevenson the most broadly masterful of all.

On the best of the genre:

And it is a form with masters, like John Updike (whose book reviews are literary essays of exquisite grace and erudition, far more interesting and pithy than his novels, with far less neurotic, lusty misadventure) or Christopher Hitchens (whose reviews are energetic, opinionated, bristly, tart and often hilarious), or James Wood (who is almost always startlingly perceptive and who, bless his heart, coined the happy phrase "hysterical realism" to describe much modern fiction).

And the not-so-wonderful:

And like any form it has its charlatans and mountebanks; what is more entertaining, among the dark pleasures of reading a newspaper, than realizing that the reviewer has not actually read the book in question, and is committing fizzy sleight-of-hand? Or reading a review that is utterly self-indulgently about the reviewer, not the book? Or a review that is trying desperately to be polite about a book with as many flaws as the New York Knicks? Or reading a reviewer, like Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times, who must spend hours every day sharpening razors with which to eviscerate the books she reviews, and has liked, as far as I remember, only two books in the history of the universe, Ian McEwan's "Saturday" and Richard Flanagan's "Gould's Book of Fish"?

My one quibble here is that I do not consider it a pleasure of any kind to realize that a reviewer hasn't read the book -- especially as this has happened to me personally (and by somebody reviewing for a paper in Oregon, by coincidence). My reaction had more to do with disgust and anger.

The article will disappear at some point into the pay-for-view archives, so read it while it's hot.