I wasn’t sure what this question meant—or who was asking
it—but then other questions came to me, and I wrote them down: Would you eat at McDonald’s, Walt Whitman?
What would you think of plagiarism, Walt Whitman? If you got into a duel with
Alexander Pushkin, who would win, Walt Whitman? Can you help me fix this lawnmower,
Walt Whitman?
As I began writing the answers to these questions, my
piece quickly ballooned from a short story into a novella. Then it grew long
enough to earn the moniker “novel.” I never would have set out to write a novel
on a lark, but that’s what ended up happening. I thought of it as my silly
novel. It was my respite from working on Hard Writing.
Each of the questions ended up framing a chapter. I now
have twenty-eight sets of questions—with answers—that make up the draft of my
novel. If you asked me what my novel was about, I’d say Walt Whitman. I might
also say it is narrated by a twenty-seven-year-old Russian-American doctoral
student whose obsession with Walt Whitman has led her to talk to him in her
head. (And no, I am decidedly not the narrator. This is a work of
fiction. I hardly ever talk to Walt Whitman.)
As I wrote, I kept going back and making additions. My work
was a slow accretion of detail. I added the best friend with the autistic son,
the dead father (who started out being a chemist but is now an astrophysicist),
the annoying and creepy grad student who has a morbid interest in phrenology,
the evangelical midwife from western Iowa who breaks the law to assist with
homebirths in Nebraska. So I threw all of this in—and a bunch of other things—and
then I put the manuscript away for awhile. I turned to tackling the Hard
Writing.
But I kept thinking about my silly novel, about how I
might improve it. I thought about it so much I decided maybe it wasn’t silly
after all. Maybe it was more than a lark. Maybe it started out silly and
lark-like, but maybe I could make it more than that. So I asked my friend
Amanda to read it.
After ruminating over all of Amanda’s insightful comments,
I see how the novel is still, at some points, an accretion of detail. I see how
all the separate, discrete pieces I shimmied into place don’t make a fully
harmonious whole. A novel is not just a layering of detail, a depositing of
sediment; there needs to be a unity, a semblance of a complete world.
It’s time for stepping back and seeing the whole book, the
parts that haven’t meshed, the parts that aren’t resolved, the parts that just
don’t fit. It’s time for looking at the macro level, not the micro level. I
need to see not individual words, not paragraphs, not even chapters, but the
pattern they create together. I need to see the big picture. And so with Amanda’s
comments, with my own scrawled notes, with Walt Whitman in my heart, with a
color-coded chart, I set to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment