Barnes – The Sense of An Ending

Other People’s Dreams

Sense of Ending BarnesBarnes, Julian. (2011). The Sense of An Ending. New York: Vintage

The title is apt. The ending is not fully resolved. It’s only the sense of an ending, and not even well-integrated into the story. Part one of the story tells of a young man, Tony, and his friends and girlfriends during his adolescent school  years. In part two, Tony is in his sixties, remembering those early times, and pursuing a woman who he knew back then. The book is a short (161 pp.) meditation on the nature of autobiographical memory.

The writing is competent and straightforward, with Tony as the narrator throughout, mostly first-person, sometimes verging into second-person, addressing the reader directly. Although the diction is not lyrical, the tone is thoughtful and original, and that’s what keeps your eyes moving.

“Some of my contemporaries did VSO, departing to Africa, where they taught schoolkids and built mud walls; I wasn’t so high-minded. Also, back then you somehow assumed that a decent degree would ensure a decent job, sooner or later. ‘Ti-yi-yi-yime is on my side, yes it is,’ I used to yodel, duetting with Mick Jagger as I gyrated alone in my student room” (p.49).

I think the quality of the writing, with its detailed analysis of relationships, is probably what won the novel the Man Booker Prize, because there isn’t a lot else going on. Characters remain sketchy outlines that don’t develop much over time because the focus is entirely on Tony’s memory and he doesn’t know how the others developed after they separated.

Structurally, the main premise of the story is presented in a flawed way. The theme is that memory is a series of vague, unreliable impressions, subject to constant revision and reinterpretation, never an actual record of what happened. That’s a worthwhile observation, if not exactly news. But the narrator throughout is the elder Tony, even in Part One, where the youthful relationships are described in detail. In Part Two, he muses over the accuracy and meaning of those early details. Well, couldn’t he just go back and read Part One for clarification? The premise is set up badly.

I did go back and re-read Part One, and found that key  details that could clarify the mysteries in part two were summarized rather than dramatized. In that way, the author  purposefully elided key clues. That’s clever, but not honest with the reader, and annoying. I think a writer should never annoy the reader.

On the other hand, perhaps that is the nature of autobiographical memory – we remember that certain key relationships happened, but what were those relationships really like, exactly?  It’s impossible to know in retrospect because the person you were then is long gone. One has the sense of having been a ghost moving through one’s early life without leaving footprints. The novel conveys that sense, but I think Part One should have been in the voice of the younger Tony, to make the thesis legitimate and not a writer’s trick.

The writing sags in Part Two, where the elder Tony reviews his bland and beige adult life, and contrasts it with the promise of youth (which was only stereotypically alleged, never described). Finally, he re-initiates contact with Veronica, the love of his youth, who he jilted because she was cold and controlling, and he pursues a confusing email and postal exchange with her until the “sense of an ending.”

It’s a thought-provoking read, but at the end, one is grateful that the story didn’t go on even one page longer, because other people’s memories are about as interesting as other people’s dreams.

Getting Ready for the Next Outing

PatriarchsI’m ready to start my next fiction project, a novel, which I’ve been thinking about for a year. I’d like to address two main ideas. One is the bifurcation of American Society, into reactionary conservatives and experimental progressives, but I don’t want to write a political novel, and it’s not about Republicans and Democrats, and it’s not about rich and poor. It’s about different sets of attitudes toward self and world. One group, the Patriarchs (working name for that group) is dedicated to conservation of traditional values, social privilege, and exploitative capitalism, yet conservative as they are, they are inventively radical in the methods and rationales they use to suppress those who dissent.

FarmersThe second group, the Farmers, rejects consumerism, embraces community self-sufficiency, and pursues arts and sciences rather than financial gain for its own sake. Most of them also happen to be farmers, but that’s not the important part. By rejecting rabid consumerism, the Farmers incidentally bring about the collapse of the Patriarchal economy in the U.S. The key to the Farmers’ success is education about self and world. They want only what they need, and have the knowledge, self-control, judgment, and intersubjectivity, to understand what supports their health and well-being in the long run.

Chili peppers

In that sense, the novel will be utopian, because on this planet, in this era, the requisite education for a successful Farmers community is lacking, for a lot of reasons. Which brings about the second idea, a magic pill. It’s actually not a pill, but a plant and a recipe that produce a food product that at first seems to be a mild euphoriant, like marijuana, but turns out to have far greater (non-toxic) effects on consciousness, more like ayahuasca. It will have whatever magical powers I need to establish the Farmers.

The main conflict of the story will be, what happens when the Farmers discover how to live and prosper without the frenetic consumer society we are accustomed to now? The Patriarchal media, marketing, and retail industries all but collapse when their consumer base radically shrinks, so the Patriarchs act to suppress the magic food substance (called just Magic, right now). What does happen? I don’t know yet, but that’s the struggle and the exploration.

Times squareThe problem is, I don’t want to write a sociological essay, not even in allegory. I want to write interesting characters that readers will care about. I think I have some of those in mind, but my worry is that development of the ideas will swamp development of the characters. My strategy is to focus intensely on the characters and keep the war of ideas in the background. The characters stumble into that war; they don’t charge into it waving flags. This all might be too much to attempt for a writer of my limited experience.

I considered setting the story in an artificial world, perhaps like Frank Herbert did with Dune, but I’m not much interested in sci-fi or fantasy. Yet I would be creating an artificial world, so why not set it on Planet X? I don’t know, I just don’t want to.

MarijuanaAlternatively, I could closely model the social movement to legalize marijuana, and forget about Magic. I think legalization of marijuana will have profound social and economic effects that won’t be apparent for a couple of generations. But that doesn’t interest me either, because it’s too slow, too ordinary, and anyway, marijuana doesn’t have the magic of Magic. Suppression of short-term memory and critical thinking won’t get you to self-knowledge and community prosperity.

Despite the formidable problems I see, I’m thinking I’ll try it, so I’ve been interviewing my main characters, asking them what they think, believe and want, getting them ready for an outing.

Four Projects at Once!

taos-puebloProject 1: I have put my most recent novel, “Being Ruby,” to bed for a while. It will rest until July, when I will take it to the Taos Summer Writers’ Conference (http://www.unm.edu/~taosconf/). I hope to find out if the manuscript is readable and engaging, and to learn if there are major flaws. I think Taos is one of the only places, maybe the only, where you can get several readers to commit to 300 pages. That seems worth it. Of course it also means I’ll have to read 1500 pages of others’ manuscripts. Manuscripts are circulated in May, and after one is sent in, it cannot be edited again, so I expect I’ll be doing some furious editing between now and May. It’s a compulsive thing. It may even be helpful to read with the eyes of an “other.” After that… I don’t know.

RoSEProject 2: I’ve been invited to submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, RoSE, which stands for Research on Steiner Education (http://www.rosejourn.com/index.php/rose). They reviewed one of my non-fiction books in Volume 4 Number 2, and I guess that admits me into the club. The bad news is, I don’t know much about Rudolph Steiner, their patron saint. He’s the guy who founded Waldorf education and the first Waldorf school. The editor says I can write about anything germane to their theme topic for that issue, observation of mental activities, so I’m sketching an article on consciousness and creativity. I have no idea if it will fly.

IMG_5475Project 3: I have a hard-boiled cop novel that’s been resting for almost a year. It’s called Desert Dream, and concerns a tough Tucson police detective who also writes detective novels. It highlights scenery around Tucson and southwestern Arizona. I wrote it as an exercise in voice. I wanted to see if I could write a consistent, distinctive, narrator. I’ve decided to serialize it online at Critique Circle (http://www.critiquecircle.com/queue.asp) to get feedback. There are some experienced writers at CC among the beginners, so there is always a chance of a good critique.  The exercise will force me to re-edit each chapter before I post it, hopefully fixing the problems I know are in there, then I should get feedback that will tell me at least if the story and the voice are engaging. That starts in two weeks and might run 6 months, or until I get tired of it, or until the readers do.

Next Big thingProject 4: I’m sketching THE NEXT BIG THING, which I think will be a novel in third-person, that addresses the bifurcation of American society into conservatives and progressives. It won’t be ostensibly a political novel, but will highlight conflict between “The Patriarchs” and “The Farmers.” The Farmers grow a plant with prozac-like effects, which the Patriarchs try to suppress. I don’t want to go sci-fi/fantasy, so I’ll try to stick close to realism.

I’m not sure about the idea. I want to write interesting characters, not a fictionally disguised essay about society. If I attempt both, I might get lost. Maybe I should put my characters in a real historical context instead of a made-up one.

Harding – Tinkers

Tinkers41Could’ve Used A Bit More Tinkering

Harding, Paul. (2009). Tinkers. New York: Bellevue Literary Press.

This short (191 pp) Pulitzer Prize-winner has a great opening line: “George Washington Crosby began to hallucinate eight days before he died.” Much of the imagery in this story is hallucinatory.

George drifts in and out of reverie, remembering his harsh childhood in 1920’s (?) rural Maine, as well as his adult life fixing old clocks. He also recalls his father, Howard, a traveling horse-and-buggy salesman of the 19th century, bringing safety pins and soap to remote country dwellers, in exchange for a few pennies. Howard was also a tinker, a fixer of things, and an epileptic. He and his wife tried to hide the seizures from the children, but George knew something was wrong. The wife was resentful of the hard life Howard provided for the family. Howard’s epileptic seizures are beautifully described and as hallucinatory as George’s. Then George dies, and that’s it.

It’s a very self-consciously “literary” novel, with often seemingly strained lyrical language and basically no story. The poetic mood is the strong point of the text, some of the hallucinatory imagery especially well-rendered. Beyond that however, the writing is not great. In several places there are undocumented shifts in tense, time-period, style, point of view, and narrative mode, from first-person to second-person, to third-person and back. Maybe that’s supposed to be “artistic,” but it’s also disjointed and often confusing.

Characters are revealed in unconnected vignettes, as real memory often feels, but the characters don’t change and are not motivated by anything. Howard implausibly deserts his wife and family when he learns she is planning a mental institution for him, but that’s about the extent of character development.

“Light skin of sky and cloud and mountain on the still pond. Water body beneath teeming with reeds and silt and trout (sealed in day skin and night skin and ice lids), which we draw out with silk threads, fitted with snags of fur or bright feathers. Skin like glass like liquid like skin; our words scrieved the slick surface (reflecting risen moon, spinning stars, flitting bats) so that we had only to whisper across the wide plate.” (p. 45).

Great writing, or word salad?

Taylor – A Secular Age

Secular AgeFarewell to Religion?

Taylor, Charles (2007). A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 874 pp. $40, ISBN 9780674026766

Charles Taylor, eminent, prize-winning philosopher, asks this question: “…Why was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say, 1500 in our Western society, while in 2000 many of us find this not only easy, but even inescapable?”

Taylor’s answer is interesting because he does not merely list the various permutations of religious belief: Plato, Aquinas, The Reformation, Deism, the Vatican II council, and so on, although certainly these are discussed. Rather, he tries to identify the changes in intellectual and social life that made what was recently unthinkable, now a reasonable choice. He is interested not just in belief itself, but in the conditions that make belief possible.

This sprawling tome is a difficult read, and at the end of the journey, I got the feeling that Taylor, a Roman Catholic, had decided that the secular age has triumphed so thoroughly that he could only offer a few whimpers of regret. Without saying so, he seemed to be waving a poignant farewell to religion.

Llosa – The Storyteller

Storyteller - Llosa

We’re All Storytellers

Llosa, Mario Vargas (1989). The Storyteller. Helen Lane (trans.) New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux

An unnamed first-person narrator, traveling in Florence, tells two stories. One is about his lifelong fascination with the pre-industrial, unacculturated tribes of the Amazon basin, in Peru. He describes having gone upriver to study the tribes in his youth. The second story is about his college-years friend, Saul, who was equally fascinated with the premodern tribes but who disappeared mysteriously, only to be discovered later as having “gone native” and joined one of those tribes as a quasi-shamanic storyteller, one who serves as messenger, bard, and collective memory for the tribe.

Interspersed with the narrator’s tale is another set of stories told by another first-person narrator, who we eventually learn is Saul, speaking as a native storyteller, relating the indigenous cosmology and myths and also telling his own tale of how he became a storyteller.

The book closes with the original narrator musing in perplexity: How could a modern person go back to a premodern condition? How would it be possible to go from science to magic, from reason to animism, from progress to timeless myth? Ironically, he is a Peruvian himself, but he asks these questions while in Florence, surrounded by European Renaissance art and architecture. He also doesn’t deliberate on the Spanish conquest of the Peruvian Incas in the 1500’s, which led to the modern culture which he claims as his own. Further, he does not seem to be self-aware that as the narrator of the framing story he is himself modern storyteller.

As an ethnographical essay, there is much food for thought here. Are premodern cultures “primitive?” Are they “living history?” Should they be preserved, or allowed to assimilate? What do they want? Is their absorption by the dominant, invading culture inevitable? Is it wrong? Is there “good” cross-cultural contact (medicine and tools) and “bad” contact (disease, exploitation, religious evangelism)?  What is the ethical responsibility of anthropologists when studying a new culture? These and many other questions are worthy of consideration. I’m not sure if they constitute a novel.

Some readers might find the native myths charming. I saw them as a set of largely incomprehensible nonsequiturs, not even good fairy tales. This reaction, of course, is a function of the vast alienation between modern western, and premodern Amazonian life. But what should I take from that?

“Thereupon, Pareni and her husband, Yagontoro, became alarmed. Wasn’t Pachakamue upsetting the order of the world with the words he uttered? The prudent thing to do was to kill him. What evils might come about if he went on speaking? They offered him masato. Once he’d gotten drunk, they lured him to the edge of a precipice. “Look, look,” they said. He looked and then they pushed him off. Pachakamue rolled and rolled. By the time he got to the bottom, he hadn’t even waked up. He went on sleeping and belching, his cushma covered with masato vomit.” (p. 133).

At least we can say that human beings are distinguished from the numerous birds, monkeys, insects, cats, and cows that populate the book, in one main feature: alone among the animals, we tell stories to each other.

What Comes After The End?

Banana_bread_fresh_from_the_oven,_October_2009I got to “The End” of the first draft of my latest novel without a car chase, drug bust, or explosion and only one murder, which occurs off-stage. I think I stayed focused on my character. I went back through and did an edit, looking for obvious errors, redundancies, clunky constructions, and arrhythmias. That pulled out about 400 words, but I added about the same back in to develop passages that seemed to gloss over important material. In the end the word count stayed about the same, just over 70K.

Now, I think I’ll let it bake for a month or two. I need to improve some physical descriptions, which I find difficult to write, but I’m somewhat overdosed on this project right now, so I’m going to procrastinate that chore. I also have some nagging worries. One is that my antagonist might be severely one-dimensional, verging on Snidely Whiplash. That happens because it’s a first-person narrator, and she sees him that way. It’s not clear how I would round him out, from her point of view.

Another concern is having too much summary and not enough enactment. There’s a lot of dialog, and some of it is expositional. In part that’s because of the framing device of MC talking to a counselor, which, by definition, is talking heads. I tried to offset that constraint by dramatizing numerous events in reminiscences and flashbacks, rather than summarizing them, but all the time-slicing does interrupt the forward momentum. I don’t know if it’s bad, or if I got away with it.

It’s not entirely clear what’s telling and what’s showing. In real life, what most people do, 99.9% of the time is summarize events to each other. Few of us work on a shrimp boat all day or ride a horse across the desert. What we do is talk to each other, in person, on email, or telephone. We’re in the business of telling stories to each other. Why then is “telling” anathema? I think maybe that dichotomy is badly characterized.

I wouldn’t mind submitting the novel to a critique group, especially a group of experienced writers. I could workshop it. I considered the Taos writing conference, which I attended a couple of years ago for a class on character-driven plotting. They have a master novel class which reads complete manuscripts. I’m tempted, despite the steep price (about $3,000 for me, including travel, food, lodging, conference and workshop fees). I’d have to critique 5 other novels in order to earn 5 critiques of mine, a fair trade, but a lot of work. I’ve been to a lot of workshops –stories, poems, novel chapters – and they’ve been consistently underwhelming, the blind leading the blind, basically. Nevertheless, any reader feedback is valuable, so I haven’t ruled it out.  Maybe it’s too soon to think about next steps. I’ll let my “finished” manuscript age on the backup disk for a while.

Winterson – Written on the Body

Written on Body WintersonA Phenomenology of Love

Winterson, Jeanette (1992) Written on the Body. New York: Vintage

This is a love story, a poetic tale about an unnamed, first-person narrator and a married woman, Louise. Much has been made by reviewers about the fact that the narrator’s gender is not specified, but I suspect that Winterson’s point was to explore the quality of love, regardless of gender, and to that end, the novel is successful. Nevertheless, I was 100% certain the narrator was female, because my intuition is that love has a different phenomenology for men than women.

Narrator is described as a serial womanizer, not in the self-aggrandizing (male) style of love-em and leave-em, but because she (the narrator) finds that love eventually wears through to complacency, while she relishes the intense passion of new love, and besides, she is easily swept away by a beautiful person or a mysterious or interesting new relationship.

She falls for Louise, who reciprocates, and they become lovers. The descriptions of joyous love, both mental and physical, are perfectly rendered, perhaps better than any other writer has done. The language is magically elevated and lyrical, and simultaneously concretely specific. I do think the description becomes excessive at times, because love is framed as an overwhelmingly personal emotional and sensory experience, egocentrically greedy, without much social and intellectual context. I’d say the quality of  this love is 180 degrees away from the subtle, implied, but equally intense love between Stevens, the butler, and Miss Kenton, in The Remains of the Day.

The heart and soul of the story occurs when paradise is lost. Louise’s physician-husband reveals that Louise has an incurable cancer, though she is presently without symptoms. The plot gimmick is that Louise can be cured only if the wealthy and well-connected husband takes her to a special clinic in Switzerland, which he will not do unless Narrator leaves her.

Reminiscent of Toni Morrison, Narrator furtively packs up and leaves without a word, granting her beloved health and life, sacrificing their love. In the last half of the book, Narrator grieves her lost love. The experience of love lost is rendered just as exquisitely as immersion in love was.

This was my second outing with Winterson. I was astonished and captivated by the quality of her writing in Art & Lies, and this novel confirms for me that she is a great writer. While Written on the Body is compelling, it didn’t work as well for me as her other novel. Surely it’s a personal view, but I thought the quality of the love described here, while intense, tended to the adolescent: self-indulgent, egocentric, and un-self-aware. Been there, done that. With my interest not fully engaged then, I was left to admire the formidable writing, but I can’t say I gained insight about the human condition.

Steinhauer – The Tourist

tourist-olen-steinhauer-paperback-cover-artThe Spy Who Went Into the Cold 

Steinhauer, Olen (2009). The Tourist.  New York: Minotaur/St.Martins.

This is a well-written spy novel, which measures up to some of Le Carre’s lesser works, such as The Mission Song or Single & Single.  As with Le Carre, Steinhauer’s characters are driven by personal and interpersonal motives.  Violence is minimal and Bondian gadgets nonexistent.

The protagonist, Milo Weaver, is called back into active CIA “black ops” duty to find out if an old friend in Paris is actually selling secrets to the Chinese.  The black ops organization is called the Tourist Agency, and operatives are Tourists.  Reluctantly, Weaver tears himself away from his wife and daughter to do one last job.  Not surprisingly, things take a turn for the worse and it will be three hundred pages before the adventure is over, and by that time, the wife has lost patience and left him.

The writing is solid, imaginative, and non-cliched, good enough to keep the pages turning.  Here are some random samples:

“Librarians.”  Grainger sniffed at the traveler.  “You should’ve listened to me.  There are absolutely no odds in marrying smart women.”

Milo had always been a many-key kind of man.  He had a key to his car, his apartment, his desk in the office, Tina’s parents’ house in Austin, and one unmarked key that—were he asked—he would say led to his apartment building’s shared basement.  In truth that key opened this storage space.

Structurally, the book is flawed.  There is a completely unhelpful prologue, six chapters long, which contributes very little to the story, does little to introduce characters, tone, or mood, and the events of which are summarized in detail three hundred pages later.  Then, the main story seemingly ends on page 396 when a CIA mole is uncovered, but no.  That’s only when another section of 17 chapters starts, a sort of extended epilogue in which all sorts of melodramatic information is introduced in elaboration of the main characters’ backstories – who is really married to whom, who actually fathered which child, and so on.  None of it matters to the main story, which is already over.

There are lots of red herrings, and maybe that is legitimate, but loose ends are inexcusable.  There are also long passages of pointless speculation about what “really” happened and which bad guys under which of their many aliases might have been involved in which connections. The reader does not care about any of that because the author has failed to make sufficient emotional connection among the characters.  The weak storytelling thus diminishes the strong writing.

Jonesing For Action

 

IMG_8423For the rewrite of my latest novel, I’ve decided to cut several wonderful themes and plot points that involve cartoony physical action, which I love. It’s lights, camera, action! Not lights, camera, brooding introspection.

I’m trying to change. Action scenes can be a substitute for thoughtful writing. If I could write better, more realistic, rounded characters, I could always go back later and add action, but changing a habit is bicycling uphill.

I hate to see all that good action go to the scraps file. Die, die, my darlings! I’m now focusing on psychological development of the character through revelation of her secrets.

My instinct says secrets, shmeecrets. I struggle when writing about useless, egocentric passions. It’s more fun to stage a fistfight or a break-in. They say write what you love, but if I only did that, how would I develop as a writer? I have to get through this withdrawal before I can make a rational choice.

In the previous version, MC jumped naked off a Mississippi riverboat at night. That’s what I want to happen, dammit. But even though MC still must go aboard the paddle-wheeler to confront the villain, I am determined she will leave the boat by walking down the ramp when it docks. That prospect seems frustratingly sedate right now, but I’ll make it happen. Cold turkey.

Realistic characters simply do not jump off ships at night and swim through the cold, muddy Mississippi then stumble through a rail yard looking for shelter. James Bond would do that, Halle Berry would do that, but not my MC, who is a real person struggling with her damn psychological and family issues. Discipline!

After cutting the most outrageous action from my outline, I may finish with a low word count, which will be okay, because I’ll need to go back in later and do more descriptive material. First I need to walk calmly down the ramp to the end of the story. Once I’ve been clean and sober for a while, I’ll take another look at action.