I like these examples and I remember the ending of Sam's story - I remember hearing that one at Cafenighta while back. The things is - the people in that story are not villians or the kind of villians Rick is talking about, at least not to my mind, right? The incest is in there, sure, but the character all this has happened to is not powerless - she's not a six year oldgirl who has no clue what's happening to her - she's a grown woman who's dealt with her life in the way that everybody has to.And through this event all the people involved do find some kind of mercy - the whole thing is generous. It's not probing incest becauseoh yeah incest is interesting, moral ambiguity is interesting. And it's not telling a story with characters who are not generous.Maybe it's a story about characters who remember how to be generous? I don't know what else to say about it yet.
[originally posted by Elizabeth Wagner]
Thursday, March 6, 2008
the formal gesture
I think what I was aiming for was not only the formal gesture ("I Stand Alone"), where the camera does the work of sort of "making it okay" by me that this thing has happened, but the (perhaps)intellectual gesture that shows up in literary fiction from time to time, in which our established notions of morality are questioned. I used the example of one of my own stories because I couldn't think of another one of the top of my head, but it's not like I invented this,and generally speaking I don't do it as well as I wish I could do it,but - by and large - it seems to be the "gesture" that I gravitate toward.
The one example is the story in Product, where this woman gives her elderly stepfather (who'd molested her when she was a child) a hand job. He's all crippled and helpless on the bed, and he's lost control of his bowels, and it's all sort of gross, and on top of that there's the incest business that is generally considered morally repugnant, and what I was attempting to do was frame the hand job as an act of mercy, the idea being that reader will say, "oh, that was sweet of her." And like her better now, rather than saying "hey, that's incest, and incest, as well all know, is bad."
Rick was the one - incidentally - who suggested this ending, four years ago.
So I'm trying to think back on novels I've read, and the easiest one I can come up with makes me feel a little queasy, because - while I really enjoyed it at fourteen - I suspect I would find it a bit maudlin or sentimental, or something, now, and that's "Of Mice and Men," where - and as I said it was over twenty years ago I read it, so I may have read wrong - I was left to wonder whether I was looking at a mercy killing or at George making his own life a lot easier or both.
Another obvious example is "Beloved," where the act of killing your children has some moral ambiguity (seen as it is as an attempt to rescue them from slavery). Of course, I don't think the novel ever really says that killing the children was okay, exactly, but it does follow this character around - this woman who killed her children -with a great deal of compassion. So that perhaps be another example.
Trouble is the book is dull as dirt.
Chekhov does this business, too, though. In a story called "About Love," in "Lady with a Little Dog," adulterous affairs are the "trueloves," and marriage is treated as a stifling social institution that's in the way.
Anyone have better examples?
[originally posted by Sam Ruddick]
The one example is the story in Product, where this woman gives her elderly stepfather (who'd molested her when she was a child) a hand job. He's all crippled and helpless on the bed, and he's lost control of his bowels, and it's all sort of gross, and on top of that there's the incest business that is generally considered morally repugnant, and what I was attempting to do was frame the hand job as an act of mercy, the idea being that reader will say, "oh, that was sweet of her." And like her better now, rather than saying "hey, that's incest, and incest, as well all know, is bad."
Rick was the one - incidentally - who suggested this ending, four years ago.
So I'm trying to think back on novels I've read, and the easiest one I can come up with makes me feel a little queasy, because - while I really enjoyed it at fourteen - I suspect I would find it a bit maudlin or sentimental, or something, now, and that's "Of Mice and Men," where - and as I said it was over twenty years ago I read it, so I may have read wrong - I was left to wonder whether I was looking at a mercy killing or at George making his own life a lot easier or both.
Another obvious example is "Beloved," where the act of killing your children has some moral ambiguity (seen as it is as an attempt to rescue them from slavery). Of course, I don't think the novel ever really says that killing the children was okay, exactly, but it does follow this character around - this woman who killed her children -with a great deal of compassion. So that perhaps be another example.
Trouble is the book is dull as dirt.
Chekhov does this business, too, though. In a story called "About Love," in "Lady with a Little Dog," adulterous affairs are the "trueloves," and marriage is treated as a stifling social institution that's in the way.
Anyone have better examples?
[originally posted by Sam Ruddick]
vil-lian
Following on this, I also want to drop the heat down some and talk about stories where the main character is not a "nice person," or a decent, kind, generous, etc. person. In other words, can we make stories in which the main players are not really evil, but seriously flawed, or even slightly flawed. The answer is "Of course we can," but what I'm wondering is what are the advantages and disadvantages presuming that there is some imperative to make stories that are themselves life-affirming or some such shite. What might the purpose of making a story where the main character is a jerk, a self-satisfied, opinionated, self-serving, bad guy? I guess the question I trying to pull back to is even if you grant that there might be little purpose in writing a story that glorifies some heinous act, imagining that such could be done, and imagining also that it could be done without the readership providing an automatic correction in the process of reading, at what point does the main character's flaw become acceptable collateral damage given some other overall story of which this character might be the main but not the only element?
I want to have the discussion deal also with ordinary bad behavior as well as the grotesque bad behavior, to see what we think it's virtues are in primary characters. There Will Be Blood can be used in this discussion, but I'd like to do the guy/woman next door, too. And as primary as well as secondary character or villain.
vil-lain (vil'uhn) n.
1. a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
2. a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.
3. VILLEIN.
[1275-1325; ME vilein, vilain < MF < LL villanus a farm servant. See VILLA, - AN 1]
[originally posted by Rick]
I want to have the discussion deal also with ordinary bad behavior as well as the grotesque bad behavior, to see what we think it's virtues are in primary characters. There Will Be Blood can be used in this discussion, but I'd like to do the guy/woman next door, too. And as primary as well as secondary character or villain.
vil-lain (vil'uhn) n.
1. a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
2. a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.
3. VILLEIN.
[1275-1325; ME vilein, vilain < MF < LL villanus a farm servant. See VILLA, - AN 1]
[originally posted by Rick]
a story of unrelieved evil
I don't know that I've ever read a story of unrelieved evil, unless it was just terribly written and thoughtless (which in my mind is pretty close to evil). I've actually been trying to think of such a novel or story to bring into this discussion, but am drawing a blank. When it comes to "rape stories" and the like, I have to go with Elizabeth--why is it in there? Is it just because rape is horrible and we all want to horrify? Do big terrible things happening in stories make them worth reading? I really don't think so. But big terrible things happen all the time, and I think writers should be able to write about them without morality or whatever secular term we've agreed upon being our main concern. I don't know if it's our job to supply morality, but to provide the reader with something to allow her question her own morality, and what morality, good/evil, etc., is. I like Sam's thoughts here about subverting what we think of as morality or a "happy ending."
I guess what interests me--what I was hoping to get at in my story from a couple of weeks ago, and what I think is all over Travis' story this week--is how rape (murder, pedophilia, insert other horrific thing here) affects a person, how he or she and his/her family, friends, lovers, etc., react to it. Not just the victim, either, but the person committing whatever act. And the reader. And what circumstances brought the event about. Thomas Glave has a story which follows a group of men through the process of gang raping a woman--we get all of these guys' thoughts previous to, during, and after the act, but the story ends in the woman's point of view, with her singing. It's haunting. What's interesting about it is that the reader leaves the piece horrified, but not so much at the rape itself (which is graphic and quite horrifying in itself)--rather, we're horrified (please don't let me use this word again) at these guys thinking that raping someone is going to solve anything or change their lives in any way. There's more to it than that, but it's heartbreaking because of the futility of it. I'm not interested in reading a story "about" rape, or murder, or sick things happening to children or animals or old folks. And if that's all there is, it isn't worth it. I don't think there's much of anything redeeming in a story that glorifies pain. But I'll pretty much read anything that gives me some sort of genuine view of people in the thick of pain. That's all I've got for now, but I'm enjoying the conversation so far. I can bring the Glave story to class next time if anyone's interested.
[originally posted by Beth Couture]
I guess what interests me--what I was hoping to get at in my story from a couple of weeks ago, and what I think is all over Travis' story this week--is how rape (murder, pedophilia, insert other horrific thing here) affects a person, how he or she and his/her family, friends, lovers, etc., react to it. Not just the victim, either, but the person committing whatever act. And the reader. And what circumstances brought the event about. Thomas Glave has a story which follows a group of men through the process of gang raping a woman--we get all of these guys' thoughts previous to, during, and after the act, but the story ends in the woman's point of view, with her singing. It's haunting. What's interesting about it is that the reader leaves the piece horrified, but not so much at the rape itself (which is graphic and quite horrifying in itself)--rather, we're horrified (please don't let me use this word again) at these guys thinking that raping someone is going to solve anything or change their lives in any way. There's more to it than that, but it's heartbreaking because of the futility of it. I'm not interested in reading a story "about" rape, or murder, or sick things happening to children or animals or old folks. And if that's all there is, it isn't worth it. I don't think there's much of anything redeeming in a story that glorifies pain. But I'll pretty much read anything that gives me some sort of genuine view of people in the thick of pain. That's all I've got for now, but I'm enjoying the conversation so far. I can bring the Glave story to class next time if anyone's interested.
[originally posted by Beth Couture]
a small rectangular object, covered with fur
I'd be looking, too, for materials writting ABOUT this issue, starting with something of Gardner's, and distantly prior remarks on the job of literary art--what is we imagine we are doing? a small rectangular object, covered with fur, that breaks our hearts. Don had it as something like that (can't remember the exact quote), which would seem to suggest that morality, or even generosity, is not at issue, but rather at issue is the response, the effect.
But Elizabeth writes:
"about the question you emailed us all tonight. I agree we can't call it moral – I think maybe it's right to call it generous, a generosity of spirit with which we investigate the humanness of our characters, which of course must involve acknowledging that people fuck up, forgiveness is the purpose of incarnation, etc.etc.etc. And I think that I don't want to read about assholes being assholes. I think that's stupid and boring and a waste of time. And isn't some of it simply failure and lack of emotional imagination? . . . In all these rape stories (and part of it is simply that there seems to be a lot of them these days), the question to me is why is it in there? Because something "large" had to happen? Is the gravity of the experience for all parties involved appreciated or understood and made clear to the reader– no. Real bad behavior can perhaps be interesting when the reader can actually feel and be made to understand the risk of it and the loss, as well as maybe the pleasure of it or whatever it is that allows it – whatever goes missing in there. The complicatedness. It can't just be this well written thing that happens, no matter that it's horrifying (because then you get the feeling from the writer that it is about power, some weird videogame or something)."
and Sam writes:
" was thinking today about the ending of that story i wrote called"pigtails," and i mention it in my dissertation introduction, becausewhat it does is use a pedophilia fantasy to supply a happy ending.like, he has the fantasy, tells his girlfriend about it, she puts herhair in pigtails, and they live happily ever after. i'm thinking alsoof the end of "i stand alone," the happy ending there. i have a storywhere the happy ending is that an eight year old kid starts drinking.and the one in product, where the woman gives her step father a handjob. are we talking about fiction that toys with and inverts notionsof morality? work that takes things we would regard as ugly and makesthem lovely or kind in context? is this the kind of material youwant?
"i mean, not mine, obviously, but essays and fiction that deal withthis sort of business?"
And I write:
I mean, it's clear that Ellis is intentionally fouling everything he can, that is, that his forcing forward of immorality is a send up, a "treatment" of immorality that hopes to indict our culture by the (rather simple) expedient of turning up the volume on all the grotesque business that, in one form or another, at one volume or another, permeates that culture. This is what I was talking about in the orig note where I said "see the story as an "interesting" gesture against a backdrop of an assumed-shared "balanced" world view." I don't know the Samuel Delany book Ryan writes about:
But from the description sounds like it is similar in attack--shock us, or bring us to our senses, or similar, always set against the pre-existing (in our imaginations) version of a "decent" reality.
Which somehow leads back to Elizabeth's "a generosity of spirit with which we investigate the humanness of our characters," which posits implicitly that humans are (or want to be) generous, or aspire to generosity, or (and here's the rub) ought to aspire to generosity.
But maybe the question falls to the assumption that if the story is unrelieved evil, we the readers will supply the "good" to offset that evil and thus balance the experience.
But back to the "I Stand Alone" movie--which maybe we ought to watch in class?--which has no redeeming action, but which offers, as Sam says, "a happy ending" anyway, which as a formal act or art gesture is interesting because it suggests that the formal act can override the content of the story which it serves--a twisted idea but which is somehow thrilling.
More on this as news arrives.
[originally posted by Rick]
But Elizabeth writes:
"about the question you emailed us all tonight. I agree we can't call it moral – I think maybe it's right to call it generous, a generosity of spirit with which we investigate the humanness of our characters, which of course must involve acknowledging that people fuck up, forgiveness is the purpose of incarnation, etc.etc.etc. And I think that I don't want to read about assholes being assholes. I think that's stupid and boring and a waste of time. And isn't some of it simply failure and lack of emotional imagination? . . . In all these rape stories (and part of it is simply that there seems to be a lot of them these days), the question to me is why is it in there? Because something "large" had to happen? Is the gravity of the experience for all parties involved appreciated or understood and made clear to the reader– no. Real bad behavior can perhaps be interesting when the reader can actually feel and be made to understand the risk of it and the loss, as well as maybe the pleasure of it or whatever it is that allows it – whatever goes missing in there. The complicatedness. It can't just be this well written thing that happens, no matter that it's horrifying (because then you get the feeling from the writer that it is about power, some weird videogame or something)."
and Sam writes:
" was thinking today about the ending of that story i wrote called"pigtails," and i mention it in my dissertation introduction, becausewhat it does is use a pedophilia fantasy to supply a happy ending.like, he has the fantasy, tells his girlfriend about it, she puts herhair in pigtails, and they live happily ever after. i'm thinking alsoof the end of "i stand alone," the happy ending there. i have a storywhere the happy ending is that an eight year old kid starts drinking.and the one in product, where the woman gives her step father a handjob. are we talking about fiction that toys with and inverts notionsof morality? work that takes things we would regard as ugly and makesthem lovely or kind in context? is this the kind of material youwant?
"i mean, not mine, obviously, but essays and fiction that deal withthis sort of business?"
And I write:
I mean, it's clear that Ellis is intentionally fouling everything he can, that is, that his forcing forward of immorality is a send up, a "treatment" of immorality that hopes to indict our culture by the (rather simple) expedient of turning up the volume on all the grotesque business that, in one form or another, at one volume or another, permeates that culture. This is what I was talking about in the orig note where I said "see the story as an "interesting" gesture against a backdrop of an assumed-shared "balanced" world view." I don't know the Samuel Delany book Ryan writes about:
But from the description sounds like it is similar in attack--shock us, or bring us to our senses, or similar, always set against the pre-existing (in our imaginations) version of a "decent" reality.
Which somehow leads back to Elizabeth's "a generosity of spirit with which we investigate the humanness of our characters," which posits implicitly that humans are (or want to be) generous, or aspire to generosity, or (and here's the rub) ought to aspire to generosity.
But maybe the question falls to the assumption that if the story is unrelieved evil, we the readers will supply the "good" to offset that evil and thus balance the experience.
But back to the "I Stand Alone" movie--which maybe we ought to watch in class?--which has no redeeming action, but which offers, as Sam says, "a happy ending" anyway, which as a formal act or art gesture is interesting because it suggests that the formal act can override the content of the story which it serves--a twisted idea but which is somehow thrilling.
More on this as news arrives.
[originally posted by Rick]
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Usual Suspect
[My first thoughts.]
The usual suspect:
There are others, of course, such as
[originally posted by Travis]
The usual suspect:
- American Psycho, by Bret Easton EllisThis book is tough to get through because of how much
There are others, of course, such as
- Almost anything by deSade, I believe (I have only read Justine)
- some of Bukowski's short stories (and the novel Women, I think)
[originally posted by Travis]
Samuel Delany's Hogg
Samuel Delany's Hogg comes to mind as something to consider...
Intentionally vulgar, pornographic, and offensive it offers rapists-for-hire, pedophilia, murder among many other unforgivable acts and characters. I am unsure of the ultimate moral structure or the exact point of the text other than to shock. Published most recently by FC2 press it could offer some answers, questions or problems with the aforementionned ideas of fiction andthe novel. Praised by some for its vision, boldness and reluctance to conform to traditional standards, Icould only make it through a chapter.
-But what to do with a novel no one wants to read?
Until then, let us mourn the surprise loss of Omar (a tragedy unmatched since Stringer Bell). Hopefully he,too, did not regret a life led until this point
[originally posted by Ryan]
Intentionally vulgar, pornographic, and offensive it offers rapists-for-hire, pedophilia, murder among many other unforgivable acts and characters. I am unsure of the ultimate moral structure or the exact point of the text other than to shock. Published most recently by FC2 press it could offer some answers, questions or problems with the aforementionned ideas of fiction andthe novel. Praised by some for its vision, boldness and reluctance to conform to traditional standards, Icould only make it through a chapter.
-But what to do with a novel no one wants to read?
Until then, let us mourn the surprise loss of Omar (a tragedy unmatched since Stringer Bell). Hopefully he,too, did not regret a life led until this point
[originally posted by Ryan]
Your job, should you choose
This idea of what a story or novel "has to be" is fascinating, thinks I, and relevant to what we do all the time, so I'm wondering if we could keep it open for an ngoing meta-discussion in the workshop, and I would ask you all to give it some thought, adn to bring into public awareness any sources of information about the question, other answers to the question, ideas and opinions of Dr. Faustroll, whatever.
I have some sense that a story, say, that condones rape under any circumstances (not saying that today's did) would have to be a polemic of some kind, with some additional overarching argument to the contrary, some greater good argument. That to make the work palatable this is necessary. But I have not thought long and hard about this, and am open to alternative views, in fact, would like to hear other views.
What happens if a story does not achieve a balance of (I don't want to use moral here, but some other, less loaded, more secular word) impulses , but rather allows (encourages?) full on indulgence of one kind or another? Real bad behavior (toyed with in the Gaitskill title)? Would not we, as readers, supply the therapeutic opposite and see the story as an "interesting" gesture against a backdrop of an assumed-shared "balanced" world view?
Man's gotta have a code, as Omar said.
Anyway, as they say in the trade, let's discuss. Read, research, bring materials, circulate stuff, etc.
More TK
[originally posted by Rick]
I have some sense that a story, say, that condones rape under any circumstances (not saying that today's did) would have to be a polemic of some kind, with some additional overarching argument to the contrary, some greater good argument. That to make the work palatable this is necessary. But I have not thought long and hard about this, and am open to alternative views, in fact, would like to hear other views.
What happens if a story does not achieve a balance of (I don't want to use moral here, but some other, less loaded, more secular word) impulses , but rather allows (encourages?) full on indulgence of one kind or another? Real bad behavior (toyed with in the Gaitskill title)? Would not we, as readers, supply the therapeutic opposite and see the story as an "interesting" gesture against a backdrop of an assumed-shared "balanced" world view?
Man's gotta have a code, as Omar said.
Anyway, as they say in the trade, let's discuss. Read, research, bring materials, circulate stuff, etc.
More TK
[originally posted by Rick]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
