Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Book and The Rose

Well, I think we were an outrageous success! My thanks go to the brave readers from The Hatchery and Comedy of Errors, who took on one of Brighton’s most popular city squares, on the hottest day of the year, and made the audience love them.
We started with a few people and ended with a small throng. Not quite a crowd but definitely a bit more than just an audience. Nineteen stories were read in 20 minutes, and if I tell you that I introduced the writers too, you can imagine just how quick-fire our ultra short story reading was.
My thanks go to – in the order in which they read - Annie Kerr, Marina Stubbs, Jeannette Nundy, Liz Lundin, Roger Bluff, Kay Beer, Kavita Amarnani and Pam Vincent. They were great writers, even better readers, and a lovely bunch to introduce to the world.

We’ll do it all again next year!

Saturday, April 25, 2009

This week I'm interviewing Michael Kimball as part of his blog tour for Dear Everybody, a novel with a fascinating structure. I'm not actually going to talk much about the novel, because Michael's answers to my questions illuminate so much of the work, and the way that he created it, that I don't think you need much of a overview from me, other than to say that if you've ever thought that you couldn't be gripped by a novel whose ending is clear from the first page, think again. One of the pleasures of this novel is filling in the gaps that lead you from knowing the end, to understanding it, and it's a very satisfying, if sometimes melancholy, experience.

When I thought about what I wanted to ask Michael, the structure of the novel loomed very large in my mind, and so I started with that question.

Epistolary novels are a fairly old form, but you’ve given this idea of a story told in documents a very new twist, in part because there is no surprise at the end here – we already know that Jonathon Bender died by his own hand, and that his brother, Robert, is attempting to piece together Jonathon’s life by means of documents left behind. Why did you choose this structure for such a bittersweet narrative?

The beginning point was accidental. Dear Everybody started with one short letter, a man apologizing to a woman for standing her up on a date; the man is wondering if they had gone out that night, if maybe his whole life would have been different, better. At first, I didn’t know then who was speaking or that it was a suicide letter, but I did have a strong voice and a skewed way of thinking. That one letter led to hundreds of short letters—Jonathon, apologizing to nearly everybody he has ever known. After that, I added the obituary, the eulogy, and the last will and testament. After adding those framing elements, the novel opened up for me in a new way. I realized that I could include anything. I added the mother’s diary entries, conversations with people from Jonathon’s past, the psychological evaluations, encyclopedia entries, weather reports, yearbook quotes, to-do lists, a mixtape, and other sorts of documents that fill in the parts of Jonathon’s life that he can’t tell us with his letters. Writing a novel made up of 349 short pieces allowed me to deal with difficult material – abuse, mental illness, suicide – that might have become sentimental if handled as traditional narrative. And that also allowed me to put huge amounts of story into the novel. Each little piece is its own story.

There’s another narrative monolith lurking behind Dear Everybody, because there’s also a sense in which you’ve written the antithesis of the Great American Novel. Jonathon’s unwanted birth and his family’s move from California to Michigan begin a series of diminutions in which his life, world and opportunities get ever smaller and more constrained. How deliberate was your focus on the intrinsic value of smallness and failure as opposed to bigness and success, as subjects of fiction?

It was pretty deliberate. I recognized that particular way of thinking in the first letter I wrote—a desire for something else that is not possible, always finding failure in whatever is happening (whether it is a failure or not). Psychologists call it a negative affect and that thought very much animated the writing of Dear Everybody. It is anti- both in the sense of things not turning and also in the way it is told, the non-traditional narrative.

We get to know Jonathon entirely through his relationships with others, although Robert, his brother, actively rejects some of Jonathon’s experience and even censors a letter in which Jonathon has said something about their father that Robert cannot accept. The reader has to guess what to put in the gaps between the letters – to what extent are you happy that a reader might find a very different view of Jonathon to your own?

I’m OK with different readers having different views of Jonathon. It was a risk I had to take when I decided to write the novel that way, with all the different kinds of documents (and it is part of the function of the other documents that aren’t letters, to fill in those gaps). This way of telling the story is also one of the reasons the novel can cover so much ground, tell so much story through implication and accumulation. And that particular passage, those blacked out lines –my feeling was that spelling it out would have lessened the emotional power and narrative complexity of the novel.

You’re very involved in the world of micro-fiction and the condensing of life experience into tiny formats. What is it that appeals to you so much about very short fiction?

I am fascinated by implication, by how much story can be conveyed in how few words. I think writers owe that to readers—to give them as heightened an experience as they possible can.

Tom Bender, the father, is a ghastly character – he has no redeeming features at all! Do you see him as a genuine monster or as a version of a certain kind of masculinity at a certain period of history – in other words, is he unique or could some aspect of him be lurking in many men?

It’s kind of sad to say, but he is a somewhat torqued up version of my father and the fathers of many of my friends—a conglomeration of the worst.

And I always ask this: if you were abandoned on a desert island, with just one book for company, what would it be?

Just one book is tough, but I’m going to go with Daniel Schreber’s Memoirs of My Nervous Illness – for the way Schreber’s mind unfolds and unfolds in irresolvable ways.

I hope that I've managed to fill in some of the gaps, and illuminate some of the 'implications' that Michael uses so effectively to tell one life, in letters and documents, and turn it into a sweet and melancholy meditation on why people may end their lives, and what that does to those they leave behind.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Ren, Kay and Carmel all have news …

It’s not every month that all three of my tripartite writing elements have good news to share, so forgive me if I sound a bit full of myself.

Starting with Ren Holton, who has a story in Robots Beyond published by Permuted Press. Ren had a great time working with Lane Adamson, the editor of this particular anthology – it’s not often that any of the three of us get asked to ‘ramp it up’ and I don’t think anybody has ever asked Ren to get ‘more graphic’ before, so props to Lane for taking the world of machine intelligence (and machine libido!) as far as it can go.

Then Kay, who’s proud to be introducing other writers to the public next weekend. The Book and The Rose is a new event, taking place in the square outside Jubilee Library in Brighton on 26 April – obviously enough, there will be stalls selling books and stalls selling flowers, and two of the writing groups I facilitated last year have been invited to read ultra-short stories and poems on the themes of Dragons, England, St George, Books and Roses. And as the facilitator, it’s going to be Kay’s great pleasure to share the literary talents of some of the writing group members with the general public. We kick off at 12:45 but the event runs 11:00-17:00 so come along and have fun.

And finally Carmel Lockyer, who is wriggling into a genuine 1940s crepe de chine dress and heels (not genuine, sadly) to read at the 'Club Smooch meets Tight Lip'. Yes, it’s erotica and once again, it’s aid of the Macmillan Cancer Trust. There are some fantastic giveaway prizes from Ollie and Nic and Zilli's brasserie, and cocktails at my favourite Brighton haunt, Hotel Pelirocco (try the Nipple Clamp, it’s a party-creating drink) as well as a line-up of great erotica readers: Emily Dubberly, Maxim Jakubowski, Kristina Lloyd and yrs truly, alongside a pouting, pulsating, scintillating group of burlesque performers. All this for £15, one-third of which is going directly to the charity. Friday 1 May at Komedia, Brighton. Go on, you know you want to be there …

Friday, April 17, 2009

Writing and Life

What I'm doing next week: interviewing Michael Kimball about Dear Everybody a fascinating novel in letters.

Michael's on tour:

Mon 13th *Me & My Big Mouth* http://meandmybigmouth.typepad.com

Weds15th *Dogmatika* http://dogmatika.wordpress.com/

Fri 17th *The View From Here* http://www.viewfromheremagazine.com

Sat 18th *3AM * http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/buzzwords/

Sun 19th *Lizzy’s Literary* Life http://lizzysiddal.wordpress.com/

Mon 20th *Digital Fiction* Show http://www.digitalfictionshow.co.uk/

Tue 21st *Planting Words * http://www.plantingwords.com/

23rd Thu *Elizabeth Baines * http://elizabethbaines.blogspot.com/

25th Sat *Writing Neuroses * http://writingneuroses.blogspot.com/

26th Sun *Just William's Luck* http://justwilliamsluck.blogspot.com/

What I'm doing today: going to hospital. It's just a routine check up but as it's the good old Royal Sussex, much in the news this week for its previously vile treatment of elderly patients (no I'm not elderly) I am expecting to get a LOT of writing done. I know the waiting room there very well indeed ... although I do hope I won't still be there after dark!

Royal Sussex courtesy of dominic's pics at Flickr

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The kind of criticism every writer needs

After a great day’s workshopping in Oxford, I was quite surprised to get my ‘free read’ from The Literary Consultancy this morning, because I had more or less forgotten about it. Actually, to speak completely accurately, I remembered it on Thursday, and then forget it totally in the excitement of teaching.

The ‘free read’ was for a novel that I have doubts about. Again, to be completely accurate, I have few doubts about the novel per se, what I doubted was my understanding of the literary ‘business’ and the wisdom of writing a first novel in one genre and a second novel in a wholly different one. And at the time my doubts were strongest (having completed a first draft but before going to the nitpickery of detailed revisions) New Writing South, my regional creative writers organisation, was advertising the possibility of bursary reads by TLC. It seemed like a potential answer to my slightly nebulous questions and so it was.

The fascinating thing about getting back this kind of structured commentary from somebody who doesn’t know you except as a writer, is just how much they seem able to extrapolate your personality from your fiction. My reader was Sara Maitland, and she provided me not just with sensible, coherent and detailed answers to my questions, but with a more discursive exploration of the nature of genre, and ways to approach the categorisation of writing, which I suspect I will be returning to for years and years. It was almost as if she knew that what I wanted was somebody to lay out the territory for me, so that I could compare my view of the scenery with theirs - and yet, at the time, I didn't even realise that was what I wanted.

What I find most interesting about my immediate response to the critique, and bear in mind it’s only been in my hands for a few hours, so I’m still responding only to the broad sweep of the commentary, was my first thought, ‘So there is a way to do it that works for me!’ And what that thought meant, when I’d unpicked it, is that I find almost any kind of structured workshopping of novels to be a complete waste of time. For me. Note those words. For me. Not for anybody else. The novel in question was in fact part of a write-critique circle set up by the excellent Louise Halvardsson in which three of us both wrote our own novels and gave immediate responses to the first drafts of the other two writers, at the rate of a chapter a month. And while I loved the chance to read the work of the others, I simply read and forgot everything they said about my draft until the entire novel was done.

What I can’t do is write and revise at the same time. I have to get a whole draft done before I pick work apart, and the idea of stopping to put things right (write?) makes me shiver with horror. So the MA/MFA process of writing a major work as part of a degree would be worse than useless to me, I’d fail to write and probably fail the degree as a result.

But the feedback from TLC was exactly what I needed at exactly the time I needed it. It will be a substantive support to me in fine-tuning the novel, and it in no way interfered with my creative processes in the way that workshopping in the traditional sense would. Like Gold Dust, Jill Dawson’s mentoring programme, the TLC reading scheme could be the answer for those writers who aren’t naturally gregarious and are confident about their own approach to writing, but still want professional support and advice at certain key points in their writing careers. And while it is not cheap, the cost of a written report of this calibre is cheaper than a writing degree and allows the writer to get on with the process of writing, without having to be constantly justifying why they have chosen a certain route or technique on a chapter-by-chapter basis.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

When life gives you lemons …

… make lemonade. When life gives you workshoppers … workshop!

Friday was an absolute blast. Yes, for those who care, I wore the red boots and the Armani red-stripe shirt. Yes, I did throw up for three days before hand, and didn’t sleep properly the whole of the previous week. Yes, it all went fine in the end.

I was delivering a workshop on Recession-Proof Writing in Oxford. We stayed at the Malmaison, which is the old Oxford prison, converted to rather nice rooms, like a cross between the TV series Porridge and a hotel suite. Quite bizarre in exactly the kind of way that appeals to me most. But I still didn’t manage to sleep.

Teaching, for me, is a privilege and a terror. As a profound recluse, I limit my teaching time and always try to teach something that pushes my boundaries, and the boundaries of the people I’m working with. This is because I couldn’t bear to lose a week of sleep over a mundane day’s teaching! But it’s also because I feel honoured that people will spend time listening to me, and I think it’s important to try and share with them something that they wouldn’t hear elsewhere – as a result, my workshops are quite different to those of other people. Sometimes it doesn’t work out. Sometimes I fall off the tightrope and bruise my arse most royally. This time I didn’t. My thanks go to:

• Anna, whom I called Kate by mistake, because she looked like the young Kate O’Mara, whose drama-documentary series proposal had us all fascinated.
• Babs, for making us laugh with one of the funniest outlines for a series of novels ever. For steering me back to the station. For being ‘an absolute brick and a topping chum’ and she’ll know why that’s appropriate.
• Brian, for buying me a much-needed drink, for getting what the day was all about, and for immediately putting it into action! It’s great when a plan comes together …
• Iona, the perfect pitch-mistress, who came to learn and stayed to teach a masterclass in getting it right. Kudos.
• Jean, who paid me the immense compliment of signing up after she’d heard me describe the class, for steering this hapless idiot around Oxford and for being a brilliant convertor of other people’s ideas into concepts.
• Jenny, who waited until the very end of the day to share the most fascinating story ever; a really supportive workshopper. Such empathy should be celebrated.
• Liz, whose pitching skills and willingness to start things off were much appreciated. A real contributor.
• Neela, who play I really want to go and see and who asked quiet, cogent and illuminating questions that helped me express my ideas more clearly.
• Nick, for not being Maddy, but for producing a novel outline that went from good to stellar during the course of the day.
• Yvonne, for sharing a good luck story that gave me a teaching opportunity that every workshop facilitator dreams of, and whose byline will be seen in quality magazines very soon now.

Thank you all.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Judging books by covers and publishers by … covers

Okay, so this isn’t what I was going to write about either, but as it’s been the leitmotif of the last seven days or so, it’s what’s in the front of my mind. I’ve been emailing to and fro with a writer of my acquaintance whose novel has been accepted for publication by a small publisher. No agent involved, you see.

I am happy for her. Very much so, as she’s a writer whose work I’ve admired for several years and this could be her chance to break into a more mainstream audience which I believe she richly warrants. But there’s an issue.

The cover.

Oh yes. You see, the writer (who has given her consent to me saying whatever I like as long as she can’t be identified and doesn’t have to read it) has a very clear idea what the cover should be like. She’s been working on the novel for seven years, and in all that time her vision of the cover art has become refined and condensed until it has crystallised into a literal picture.

The publisher, on the other hand, has something of a house style. And that house style is rather different to the writer’s mental image. So after six (I think) versions of a cover that writer has rejected (cogently but determinedly rejected, I may add) they are somewhat stalemated. The writer has produced a mock-up of her ideal cover and they’ve told her that (a) they can’t get permission for it and (b) even if permission was forthcoming, the cover design she’s got in mind is way over their budget.

My view, oft expressed to her, is that if she sees herself as having a career as a novelist, she should let go now. Another book will have another cover, perhaps even a different edition of this book, should it sell well, will have something more like the cover she craves, but head-butting her small publisher over this issue is likely to cost her everything: not just this book, but her reputation.

It’s a tough old world, and recession doesn’t make publishing any more tender. No publisher, particularly a small one gambling on new writers, wants to have a drama queen on the team. While it’s hard to let go of a long-held dream, that dream should have been of getting a novel published, not getting a novel with a specific cover published. If that’s what the writer wants, she should stump up the cash and self-publish the novel. She may be right or wrong, but what she’s not is a publisher. Horrible though it is, all she can hope is that she’s enough of a success to get more control over covers in future … and that isn’t going to happen if this novel doesn’t get published at all.

I've known other writers less than thrilled by their covers, who've gone on to have more input to later novels, or even to second edition covers, which made them happy. You can't win if you aren't in ...

Bookshop courtesy of ButterflySha at Flickr

Friday, April 03, 2009

Short Story Collection review: The Last Stand of the Apache and the Valedictorian

Louis Catron was one of the first people I ‘met’ at the online writing workshop: Zoetrope. It was a fortunate meeting for me, as many other people who enter these online venues find themselves trolled and bedevilled into giving up their participation, if not their writing lives, entirely. Lou has been a constant friend and supporter since then, and his advice is always cogent and good-humoured, as well as being infused with his experience as an educator, an actor and a director. So when Lou announced publication of The Last Stand of the Apache and the Valedictorian, I was fascinated to find out what it contained and why he’d felt he wanted to move into one of the most demanding and yet under-appreciated areas of writing life: the short story collection.

The Last Stand of the Apache and the Valedictorian is a collection of short stories, plus one novella. It's an inspiring read, which is not something one says very often these days - most of the characters we encounter are people who are struggling with, and eventual resolve, the kinds of problems that many of us come across. There's a nice juxtaposition between the title story, in which two youths on the brink of manhood come to terms with leaving behind childhood and their friendship for a future of adult success and "Canon in D" in which a man confronts his father's degeneration head on, and explores what it would mean to help a parent commit suicide. Some stories have a fantastical element (I particularly enjoyed Fat Busters Inc., having written on a similar theme myself) but most are grounded in everyday experience and an examination of dilemmas and solutions. I thoroughly enjoyed the process of reading the stories and have found added pleasure in batting questions and answers back and forth with Lou. I hope you too will find pleasure in our conversation.

How did you get into writing short fiction: I know you say in your introduction that you always knew you’d be a writer (or an astronaut!) but there are thousands of people out there who don’t manage to achieve their childhood dreams – what brought you to the fulfilment of yours?

For reasons I don’t understand, I started writing when I was a kid. Grade school newspaper. High school newspaper, yearbook. Lots of, er, em, “poetry.” When I was a brash 19-year-old I applied for a newspaper job at the large daily in the capitol city. And was hired. In hindsight, I have no idea why the editor took me on, but he was a fabulous mentor who taught me about striving for perfection, never settling, respecting the rules of writing, and being accurate. I adored him. Editor of the college weekly. I also did tons of publicity for various theatres. I wrote some short stories that I now pray have permanently disappeared and sold a few to Playboy imitators and pulps. As a college freshman I wrote what I intended to be a deeply psychological religious play called “Husband of Mary,” and the college theatre presented it. Lord, it was dreadful! Brr. I started learning to be more critical of my stuff. Also while in college I wrote a TV version of The Christmas Carol and it was shown on the local station. Poor Mr. Dickens.

I never thought of myself as a capital W Writer; writing was just simply something I did.

Also, again for reasons I don’t understand, I acted. High school plays. My hometown had a marvelous outdoor muny opera and I was in those productions, quite often Chorus Member #8, even sometimes with actual lines. I was in a number of college productions, in good roles, probably not doing good acting, but when I was a junior I had a major epiphany when cast in the lead of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. I suddenly saw, for the first time, the fabulous challenges and beauties of theatre. I was totally, completely obsessed, and my life was forever changed. Up until then I was a triple major in Religion, Psych, and English. Theatre would be my career.

A second life-changing event took place some years later in grad school when I was going for a Ph.D. My mentor, a marvelously intelligent man who still is a good friend, came to me and said that his playwriting class didn’t have enough enrollment and it would be cancelled unless he got a few more students. He asked me to take the course. “Me? I don’t know anything about playwriting. I’m an actor and director.” “Oh, come on. You’re a damned good writer. Anyhow, all you need do is enroll. You can drop the course.” I enrolled. And got hooked. I wrote and wrote and wrote, play after play, what now strikes me as an amazing outpouring of one-acts and full-lengths. They were produced at the college by serious and talented actors and directors. I was awed when Buckminster Fuller and his crew came to one of my plays, a pretty strange one involving the Id and Ego, et al; Bucky thought it was a marvelous portion of his master concept of Design, and took me into his inner group. Wow. Some were published, some produced off-off Broadway, one optioned for a full Broadway production (that of course never happened but I met true gods of the theatre).

Flash forward a few decades full of directing, college teaching, writing non-fiction, and enjoying every part of it and, I like to think, doing them well, winning quite nice awards. A number of my former students were excelling as directors, writers, screenwriters, and actors, some of them becoming known around the world. They’ve written about 30 books. But I developed an itch, a vague sense of discontent and curious disappointment, a feeling that I wasn’t reaching out for the brass ring. I was a jigsaw puzzle that was missing pieces. During a summer recess I idly started writing a short story. Lightning bolts. Ah ha. That’s what I was hungry for. I felt I had come home. That kid I used to be smiled at me. Once again I was hooked, this time by fiction.

Knowing I needed support, I joined internet writers’ boards, probably hitting all the wrong ones first, and finally found a home at Zoetrope where I’ve met genuinely excellent writers and great humans, made good cyber-buddies, and I hope I’m making contributions. Members of Zoetrope owe a huge debt to Francis Ford Coppola for generously providing the site. No, it isn’t perfection. There are people who cause major problems and need to be permanently ejected to eliminate the stench they make. But the others, genuinely talented writers, those who generously share and offer support, make it damned good.

This move to writing fiction feels like my final evolution. The circle is completed. I’ve written short stories, finished a novel that I like and that is searching for an agent, have in progress another novel and a YA book.
Yeah, I still have to learn to cope with the frustrations and disappointments and harsh realities of writing fiction.

I think that even if I hadn’t known about your impressive theatre background, I’d have known you came from some part of the visual arts field, because settings are incredibly important to your stories – most of them happen in highly specific places that cause or influence the development of the tale. But which comes first for you, character, or setting - or is it something else that sparks an idea?

I think characters and theme—a word I rather dislike because it sounds so English professor pedantic—often come first to mind. They dictate setting. Because of the characters and their interchanges, “Snipe Hunting” just has to happen in a bar; the characters in “The Good Stuff” belong in a home.

But it works the other way, too: setting certainly influences characters, can dictate action, even become a major player in the action. I have a completed novel which deals with a New York fashionista and people-person high-achieving lady whose new husband transplants her to a dreary North Carolina mountain top because he wants them to become organic farmers, then during their honeymoon leaves her totally alone when his Marine Reserve unit is called up. She’s miles from the nearest neighbor, the locals shun flatlander outsiders and make clear she’s as out as a sider can be, and she’s forced to live in a creaky pre-Civil War house that has a cemetery in the front yard. There simply wouldn’t be character development, conflict, or action without that setting.

More accurately, however, I don’t think there’s one answer. The ideas seem to have various sources. For one example, I once directed A Thurber Carnival, a play that is a collection of James Thurber’s marvelous short stories. One was “Mr. Preble Gets Rid of his Wife.” Wanting to get rid of her the deadly way, the husband smiles and says to his wife, energetically, “Let’s go down to the cellar!” She calmly shakes her head. “Gee whiz,” he says, like a five-year-old who is immensely disappointed because he doesn’t get to go to the circus. “You never do what I want.” That sprightly comedy hung in my mind and I think it emerged with “The Good Stuff,” which simply came to me unbidden and told me how to mix the realism with the fantasy. Some readers have said they thought “The Good Stuff” has roots in “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” and I see what they mean, but, honestly, that story never was in my mind.

For a second example, inside me is a guy who wants to scream about aspects of society. When I was young I must’ve been greatly influenced by works like Upton Sinclair’s fiercely angry novel about Chicago slaughter houses, The Jungle (which I suspect gave birth to the vegetarian movement), John Steinbeck’s vibrant protest about poverty, The Grapes of Wrath, Dostoevsky’s potent Crime and Punishment. Like playwright-novelist Paddy Chayefsky says in his movie Network, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,” there’s a lot that purely pisses me off and I’m something of a closet social do-gooder.

So my story “Snipe Hunting” was my scream of protest about the Bush-Chaney war in Iraq which I thought was Vietnam redux. (Note to self: Self, writing about a current event isn’t a good idea because the story gets dated quickly.) In “Canon in D” I wanted to show that we simply have to find a better way of dealing with the aged. “The Circus Barker Says You’ve Got Mail” expresses a personal, genuine disgust with the damnable ‘Net merchants who spew sewage. A full-length play, Centaur, Centaur!, is strongly anti-war.

One of the (too many) stories that I’ve not yet been able to put in order wants to be a razor slash at the trolls who haunt ‘Net discussion boards, provoking discontent, their entire existence based on lies and false personas, often pretending to be the ever-so-injured and ever-so-innocent party while they perform massive acts of cruelty and ugly slander. I know about acting. Trolls are actors playing roles and they’re skilled at deception, although deeply out of place on a writers’ board where a community spirit requires honesty and trust. But while the trolls are actors, I never would want them in a theatrical company because they’d destroy it. They’re junk yard pit bulls who make an ugly stench at Zoetrope, the otherwise excellent writers’ board you and I frequent. I haven’t been able to finish this story probably because I don’t know enough about abnormal psych and can’t understand trolls’ motives to con people with lies and be so destructive, just like I can’t understand Bernie Madoff. Or maybe that troll story needs Monty Python or Jon Stewart.

Then I think there’s a third aspect. One of the secret joys of writing is that the author can explore personal history, personal actions; the author can re-shape past personal events so they come out the desired way instead of the ugly truth; the author even may find answers to questions that have ghosted in dark cobwebby corners of the mind for decades. I don’t want to disclose too much and open myself to a law suit (!), but “Horses” and “The Candy-Red Schwinn” and to a lesser degree “The Last Stand of the Apache and the Valedictorian” reflect aspects of my younger days and, wondrously, gave me answers to personally important haunting questions I simply had not been able to answer until I wrote the stories. I’ve never written about marriage and divorce, though. I wonder why not.

Finally, I think there’s pure serendipity. I suspect many writers just don’t know where a given story came from. “Fat Busters, Inc.” may have started from television advertisements pimping “lose weight fast!” I don’t know. What prompted a Sherlock Holmes story? Again, I don’t know. Why did I think of a bicycle at all, much less a candy-red fat-wheeled Schwinn for one story? Or a Harley for another? I’ve no idea. Why did Coleridge want to write about Kubla Khan and create such magic? I bet he didn’t know. Did E. A. Robinson know where his Mr. Flood came from? I doubt it. These sorts of questions must’ve been what prompted earlier generations to speak in awed voices about “The Muse.” To me, serendipitous ideas are more likely to jump out, almost full-blown, when I’m actually writing, and much less when I’ve alibied procrastination by saying, “I need a break. I’ll go off and think about it.”

Candidly, reading what other writers say about where they get their ideas sometimes reminds me of playwright Edward Albee. Asked what this or that play of his is about, Albee replied, “I read the critical interpretations of my plays then I select the one that makes me sound most intelligent and say, ‘That’s what I meant in my play.’” Ha.

You describe your collection as ‘an anthology of eleven short stories and a novella about choices’ but I think it could as easily be described as a collection of works about indomitability. Even your most downtrodden and apparently unhappy characters like Mark in ‘The Good Stuff’ and Lucy in ‘Fat Busters, Inc,’ transcend their problems. In fact it’s only Martin in ‘The Circus Barker Says You’ve Got Mail’ who doesn’t turn his circumstances into a better life. Does this reflect your personal experience, or is it just the world view you wish existed?

“Indominitability”? Wow. What a great word! That’s a fascinating insight, Kay! I wish I had seen that. Do you, I wonder, think the character in “Moon ‘Scape” transcends her problem? I hope you do, although I suspect there are those who would think her solution is immoral.

Yes, you’re quite right, Martin in “The Circus Barker Says You’ve Got Mail” doesn’t overcome. But at least he wages a good war, at least he battles against the evil he perceives. Yes, I know that some people will think he exaggerates the problem, but for him, it is a genuine, real, absolute, deadly threat. I admire the poor guy for fighting so totally for his beliefs. But then I’ve always admired Don Quixote.

More directly to your question: I’m not much given to introspection, but I suspect I’m both an idealist and cynic. I always liked former Israeli Prime Minster Abba Eben’s cynical-idealistic statement, “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other alternatives.” I think part of me is a romantic (perhaps illustrated and even influenced by this: as an actor, of all the roles I played, my favorite was Cyrano de Bergerac and—lucky me!—I got to be Cyrano for three different companies).

The romantic battles the cynical other part. I want to believe William Faulkner was right when he said, “I believe man will not only endure: he will prevail.” Then my interior cynic looks at rampant acts of humanity’s stupidity, avarice, and cruelty and I conclude that cockroaches will be the ultimate survivor.

I don’t want to consider if that mixture of idealist and cynic means I’m schizoid.

On a personal level, I don’t think transcending is as important as is the struggle. John Proctor in The Crucible may lose in one sense, but he wins because he does not, can not, give up. The musical version of Don Quixote gives the want-to-be knight that glorious song, “The Impossible Dream.” I think that’s an excellent motto. Lord, I’d like to write on those levels.

Do you use a different approach to writing for each of the different fields you’ve succeeded in: non-fiction, (what I suppose we could call didactic writing), short fiction and plays?

Having written plays, non-fiction, and fiction, I’ve learned that while they all share a need for mastery of the same basic writer’s tool kit, they’re quite different critters. They necessarily demand different approaches.

First, I now see that I got spoiled with plays and non-fiction. Every play I wrote was selected for production rather quickly after I finished it, a rare event for playwrights. Every magazine article was accepted by the first editor I contacted. Every non-fiction book was immediately accepted by the first publisher. Yes, I had an agent—Ms. Bi-Polar—but she turned out to be increasingly useless and ultimately disappeared. I placed stuff myself. With that background, when I started writing fiction I was thinking, “Hey, this ought be easy.” Ha. Naïve moi. It’s been a rude awakening.

Now that I’m writing fiction, non-fiction books seem remarkably easy to write, in sharp contrast to a novel. The chapters in non-fiction can rather exist solitarily on their own (and indeed, while writing some of those books I extracted chapters almost word-for-word and sold them to magazines). Yes, those chapters are linked by a common theme, of course, but each new chapter isn’t quite a continuation of previous ones. The non-fiction writer can pretty much write one chapter at a time without making it foreshadow the following chapters. Each chapter is linked by the basic idea, but not necessarily by interior structure. I quickly learned that one can even write them out of order quite easily and later shuffle the chapters together with few problems.

A novel, in contrast, has to be organic, tighter, more cohesive; a thirty-chapter novel, say, can’t have a new protagonist in each chapter. Each new chapter has to build atop earlier ones. So, too, with plays, with the obvious exception of one-act plays.

Too, my experience says non-fiction is easier to place. Publishers seem open for it. That is directly opposite of fiction where there seems to be a hostile “prove it” attitude.

I think plays, non-fiction, and fiction do share some commonalities. Aside from the obvious aspect of the essential disciplines of writing, re-writing, re-re-re-writing, perhaps a primary one is the need for research. The ‘Net is a marvelous resource, although a certain amount of skepticism about sites is wise. In grad school I had to learn library research techniques and, with a shameless lack of modesty, I got quite good at it. But the ‘Net! Zoom! For “The Good Stuff” I had to find intimate details about Monte Carlo, both the casino and the town. Using the ‘Net I found everything I needed in two or three hours. It would’ve taken me at least a week, probably longer, to dig out the details from a library. (By the way, there’s a funny story about that. Someone who read “The Good Stuff” contacted me and wanted to know when I was at Monte Carlo because he was convinced we had been there at the same time. Apparently the research paid off. I fear I sharply disillusioned that reader when I said I’d never been to Monte Carlo.)

The ‘Net was also an extremely valuable research aid for “Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Devil’s Raven,” and without a great deal of difficulty I was able to find a large number of important details that I think were crucial to give the story authenticity.

For me, the process of writing plays, novels, and non-fiction also share a stupid writing habit. I revise constantly, over and over, going back to page 1 again and again. I think that’s the wrong way to write. An illustration is the easiest play I ever wrote, one that unfolded clearly in my mind from the beginning and one that has had productions in every U.S. state and often in Canada: because I kept going back to the first page I went through an entire ream of paper to come up with the 30-page one-act. Far better would be to plunge to the end and then go back to revise. I just can’t do that.

I’ve been told that my fiction distinctly shows a playwriting background. Without consciously intending to, I seem to tend to use “stage directions.” That is, my characters will nod, shake their heads, walk to a window, just as a playwright writes directions. Often, as you point out, the environment is a player, rather like the scenic set for a play. I also am told my dialog seems actually spoken and reflects characterization, which is another legacy of playwriting.

Which of your short stories would you most like to adapt for the stage? Or do you feel that you write a short story simply because whatever the story contains can’t be ‘done’ on stage?

I think a film version of “Fat Busters, Inc.” could be great fun, as would “Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Devil’s Raven.” “Canon in D” is pretty much ready as is for the stage and wouldn’t be hard to adapt although it is a story that has to be told quietly; if I adapted it to a play, I’d move it from the restaurant, where they necessarily have to sit at a table all the time, to perhaps a park bench from which they can move at significant moments. Nice, simple, easy set. That exterior set, though, would mean losing the music, which I’d hate.

Of them all, though, “Snipe Hunting” would be the one I’d most like to see on stage. The intensities, pains, and angers would play very well and any actor cast in the primary role would love it. The shift from fiction to a play would present technical problems. For example, it would be a one-act, and one-acts seldom get much production value so the set would be a difficulty because I think the bar is essential, as is the TV set. Too, the actors playing the “suit” characters, who don’t speak, would likely feel (rightly) they had unrewarding roles. Still, problems aside, that’s the one I’d like to stage.

If you were abandoned on a desert island, with just one book for company, what would it be?

Just one? Owch. Tough question. I momentarily thought of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, partly because as a college undergrad I belonged to an Ayn Rand cult that primarily focused on The Fountainhead and I dreamt wistfully of finding my own Dominque, and partly because struggling to read that long (long, long) Atlas would likely last years of isolation. But those aren’t adequate reasons.

May I cop out and ask for a collection? The Complete Works of Thomas Wolfe. H’mmm. Or The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Or Edward Arlington Robinson?

No. No, not those. Now I know. I’d want The Life and Complete Speeches and Writings by Abraham Lincoln. (Being isolated on that island and therefore likely prone to depression, I’d skip his poem about suicide.) While I’ve read a goodly amount of his work and about his life, I don’t think I’d ever tire of reading it again and again. May I also have a computer on that island so I could re-write my full-length play about Mr. Lincoln?

The picture is of a Schwinn Panther and it's a surprise for Lou: a great writer, a good friend and a really fine answerer of questions!