384
Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It Writing and Publishing Not Fade Away by Ronald Gordon How lucky was I to send my first novel to a smart, kindly reader, who himself too the trouble to send it up the way; and how lucky I was too to begin my career at a time when it was relatively easy to publish first novels. More than one hundred were published by trade publishers in 1961, the year I published Horseman [Pass By]. Publishers then still considered themselves to be gentlemen and scholars, and they still thought it was important to publish young writers, carrying them for a book or two until they matured and, hopefully, produced a little revenue for the firm.

Dont Tell Me Your Wife Likes It

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A trenchant and funny account of the writing and the attempt to publish a first novel in today's competitive, risk averse literary marketplace.

Citation preview

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It

Writing and Publishing

Not Fade Away

by

Ronald Gordon

How lucky was I to send my first novel to a smart, kindly reader, who himself

too the trouble to send it up the way; and how lucky I was too to begin my

career at a time when it was relatively easy to publish first novels. More than

one hundred were published by trade publishers in 1961, the year I published

Horseman [Pass By]. Publishers then still considered themselves to be

gentlemen and scholars, and they still thought it was important to publish

young writers, carrying them for a book or two until they matured and,

hopefully, produced a little revenue for the firm.

— Larry McMurtry, Literary Life (2009)

If you must use the term "literary fiction" when referring to a manuscript you

hope to sell, do so only in a whisper, when you're alone, in a soundproof room

in the middle of the Ukraine. During the wintertime. At two in the morning.

— Lenore Raven, Editor-for-hire (2005)

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 1

Prologue

The Problem

I consider myself a serious novelist, an artist, if only because I write with the speed of

Flaubert. The subject of this particular book, however, encompasses not only art, but

commerce and the conflict between the two in a literary marketplace dominated

increasingly, if not exclusively, by genre fiction. The truth is I am an artist not only

because I write with the speed of Flaubert. That is my blessing and my curse.

To write a first novel is one thing, and no small accomplishment, but to write a

saleable first novel is quite another. (To write a second novel, saleable or otherwise, is a

separate tale altogether.) So my concern here is as much with the marketing, or non-

marketing, as the writing of my first novel. It’s not a Howtu book; if anything, it’s a how-

not-to story. Kids, don’t try this at home.

In my case the marketing was a long—an eon being the most useful unit of measure—

and painful process, much more so than the actual writing of the novel, by which I mean,

say, the first three or four drafts. Along the way, I’ve accumulated more than a few scores

to settle, but that is not among my purposes here. Not that the prospect isn’t a tempting

one. But I’m bigger than that. Actually, I’m not, so I’ll no doubt yield to temptation—

later or sooner.

I’ve read a lot of fiction, good and bad and all stops in between. In this book I mention

a number of writers great or famous or both, but for illustrative purposes only. I do not

presume to equate myself with writers of the highest merit or stature, literary or

commercial, or to suggest that what works for them works no less effectively for me. My

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 2

views of what works or even what is at work are my own, informed by my reading but

neither systematic nor accredited. In other words, they are opinions.

I began by calling myself a serious novelist. But in the following pages I make use of

less serious or less literary fiction, which I read avidly and which has its own standards of

excellence. I exclude (for the most part) only the alluring category of “trash” reading,

which offers the same pleasures as junk movies. Standards exist and the pleasures are

genuine, but non-literary. I also frequently reference novels and movies interchangeably,

as if I recognized no distinction between them. I do, but in the commercial marketplace,

that distinction is becoming all but impossible to discern.

Some names have been changed, not to protect the innocent, but myself. Sorry, no

footnotes or bibliography. Sue me. Despite the name changes, someone will anyway.

It seems a simple proposition. You write a novel.

It looks like a novel, reads like a novel. Narrative, dialogue, description, not too many

adverbs ending in “ly.” (Cleverly, you’ve edited as you go, even in that first draft.) Oh,

and it’s got a plot too, a beginning, a middle, and an end. And solid characters as well as

action. A novel even Aristotle would love.

You try to sell it. If it’s any good, someone will buy it. Sooner or later. You think.

Think again.

It soon becomes a more complicated proposition. No one will buy the novel, or

attempt to sell it for you to someone who might buy it, without reading it. Seems

reasonable. You get the right person to read it. Your wife likes it. Some of your friends

like it. Not that you press the latter too hard, lest you discover they didn’t really read the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 3

draft you gave them. Not all of it anyway. Your former English teacher loves it. You

know he’s read it, because he loves the adroit simile buried on page 237—this is long

before any darlings get murdered—but then he’s not exactly impartial. He turned you on

to the writer’s life, as lived by Fitzgerald and Hemingway, in eleventh grade.

It doesn’t take long for you to learn a few BIG TRUTHS about the marketplace.

FIRST, you’re seeking not a sale, but a “read.” SECOND, you’ll never get a read if you

send the manuscript directly to a publisher. The last such novel read, let alone published,

was probably Castle Rackrent. The underpaid reader with the M.F.A. in Creative Writing

from Brown and the eating disorder from Scarsdale (sorry, I held out as long as I could)

saw the name Maria Edgeworth and having been instructed to look for something “edgy,”

went for it. When Melville referred, in “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” to “dead letters,” he no

doubt had a slush pile in mind.

The real complications begin with BIG TRUTH NUMBER THREE. To be published

in the traditional manner, a novelist needs an agent. The good news: it’s easier—in theory

at least, like winning a powerball lottery—to get a read with an agent than with a

publisher. The bad news, a.k.a. Catch-22: to get an agent, the novelist needs to be a

published writer.

It’s like the conundrum many people face in first applying for credit. In order to obtain

credit, they have to establish credit; in order to establish credit, they have to have credit.

Maybe they get around this by having a co-signer the first time they borrow money, but I

realized very quickly that Joyce Carol Oates or Pat Conroy wasn’t going to co-sign my

novel, and I’m not sure I’d have wanted either of them to do so. It would be like your

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 4

parents still having a claim on you as an adult because they guarantee your first car loan.

(Their claims are, of course, complex and eternal, but that isn’t generally one of them.)

Maybe you establish credit by obtaining and using wisely a credit card with a very low

limit. In this application of the analogy, you sell a short story or two to a magazine. You

become a published writer. College literary magazine not allowed, but you’ve moved

way beyond that. After all, you’ve written a novel. The New Yorker or Harper’s will

grease the skids nicely.

The problem is, with magazines of that caliber, and lacking an agent, you’re back to

the slush pile. Better the “little” or literary magazines. Build a resume that will impress

agents. Perhaps win a prize. The little magazines that do pay don’t pay much, but money

isn’t the issue. Yet.

This can be an effective approach, but it rests on some questionable assumptions.

First: the author wants to write short stories. Second: he or she has an idea for a saleable

story or stories. Third, and most important: a short story is only a shorter form of a novel

rather than a different form, particularly at a length that would make it saleable. It isn’t.

In its compression, a short story resembles a sonnet, not an epic poem. Its effect is

immediate, not cumulative.

Split the difference, then. Publish a short story-length excerpt from the novel. This has

the additional advantage of providing a preview of the novel itself, of perhaps whetting

the appetites not only of agents and acquisitions editors, but of reviewers and readers.

Maybe make the agent’s job easier after he or she takes you on as a client.

Except that no one will publish any part of an unpublished novel by an unpublished

novelist. Maybe they would if the excerpt had the unity and concision of a short story.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 5

And what portion would that be? Chapter 1? What happens to the characters after that

chapter? If chapter 1“pays off” like a short story, it isn’t chapter 1. So what’s it doing in a

novel? Ditto any other chapter, especially the last. If it is has the set-up and payoff of a

short story, why’d you even write the novel?

Maybe it isn’t a novel, but a collection of short stories linked by time, place,

characters, or all three. Congratulations, you’ve written Dubliners! Try getting it

published in today’s marketplace without the name James Joyce attached to it. No one

wants a book with the word gnomon on page one and a last chapter called “The Dead.”

Maybe you should just write the screenplay first, the one you were going to write after

the novel was published and a success, the one that was going to make you real money no

matter what the novel did commercially and, not incidentally, win you an Academy

Award. Flipping things around isn’t exactly what you imagined, but it might lead to

publication of the novel. Assuming, of course, that the screenplay actually gets written,

that you can get a read for it, and representation, and a sale and, eventually, production.

Assuming, too, that it’s still your screenplay. And the Oscar—is it for original screenplay

or adapted screenplay? In either event, you’re now identified—indeed, branded—as a

screenwriter. And being a screenwriter when you want to be a novelist is like being

Pinocchio instead of a real boy. Someone else is always pulling the strings, and you’re

trying to survive in the belly of a beast. A place where even the dumbest starlets are smart

enough not to sleep with the writer.

These few examples don’t begin to exhaust the complications and the seeming

resolution of them that ensue with the writing of a first novel by an otherwise unknown,

unpublished writer. Welcome to the funhouse, an industry unto itself.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 6

Query letters, proposals, synopses, outlines, sample chapters; the weeks or months of

waiting for a reply, the form-letter rejections with the occasional gift of a single scrawled

and scathing comment or the damning-with-faint-praise that passes as kindness.

Howtu books: how to write a novel; how to write a query letter; how to find an agent,

an editor, a publisher. Regional publishers, vanity presses, book packages, e-publication,

paperback publication, self-publication.

Writers’ magazines, writers’ web sites, writers’ chat rooms; seminars and symposia on

writing, writing competitions. The special hell of workshops and writing groups, with

their perpetual clash of preening egoism and self-flagellating defensiveness. Literary

conferences and retreats, the middle-tier genre writers who star at them and the desperate

Wannabes who pay to dance attendance on these pseudo-celebrities, convinced that a

single clever question or fawning praise of Murder by Beef Bourguignon will somehow

end in publication of their nine-hundred-page historical novel, a fictionalized epic about

the heroic westward trek of pioneer ancestors from St. Paul to Minneapolis.

Unscrupulous agents, reading fees, phony contracts, spurious marketing mavens.

Above all, promises, promises, promises. For a price, Ugarti, a price. False leads, false

hopes, false advertising, false advice, false prophets dispensing false wisdom. (“Sell

everything and move to New York.”) Rejection disguised as opportunity, an endless

dance known as the Stringalong.

I’ve experienced them all. And then some. I was the biggest Wannabe that ever went

down the money pit into Wannabeland.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 7

PART I

________________________________________________________________________

Back Story

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 8

Chapter 1

The Autobiographical Element: Part I

When it comes to first novels, certain truisms apply:

Many, if not most, are coming-of-age stories.

Many, if not most, have first-person narration.

Many, if not most, make direct use of events and persons from the author’s own life.

Many, if not most of them, have young authors.

No less obvious are the factors that link these statements. In most cases, young writers

have experienced and observed little except their own lives; because they’re young, the

central experience of their lives is growing up and the forms of education it involves. These

are the only “certainties” they know. First-person narration serves both a technical and

substantive purpose. It is the “easiest” point of view for the apprentice novelist to manage,

and it gives a sense of legitimacy, however spurious, to the autobiographical material by

mooting the issue of narrative distance. It produces a sort of negative negative capability, the

equivalent of an algebraic positive. First-time novelists of any age may have a broader range

of experience but lack the artistic assurance to render it in any but a personal, “positive”

sense. The seasoned writer—Henry James in The Ambassadors, Joseph Conrad in Lord Jim

—uses personal experience no less frequently, but much more obliquely and effectively.

Only a gifted ironist could write a masterwork about his own “unlived life” (or the

complementary “The Beast in the Jungle” about the emotional withdrawal of the artist-

observer); only a supreme symbolist could transform the desertion of an oppressed Poland

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 9

into a leap from the Patna. It’s not incidental to point out that both books demonstrate a

sophisticated use of point of view. But the novice should probably abide by a simple precept:

Don’t fuck with omniscience.

To the first two of the four points listed above, I plead guilty. Not Fade Away is a coming-

of-age story with a first-person narrator. To the fourth I cannot, and to the third I do not.

I was over forty when I began Not Fade Away. The Buddy Holly connection was there

from the start, though the title wasn’t. The idea had been percolating in my mind at least

since 1971, when Don Maclean’s recording of “American Pie” was released. Before I ever

had a novel, I had an epigraph from MacLean’s lyrics (though the published novel doesn’t

have one): “Do you recall what was revealed/The day the music died?”

In fact, the original impetus to the novel occurred years before, not in an incident but an

image—that of a pretty, dark-haired, teenage girl sitting on her front lawn on a sunny spring

afternoon. I was a teenager myself, fifteen years old Andy Lerner’s age in the novel. She was

older than I, by a year or so. This was in Clai—uh, Houston, in 1962.

Some friends and I were riding around on a Sunday afternoon. You could still get a

driver’s license in Texas at fourteen, and most families of my acquaintance had more than

one car, cars and gas being cheap then, even in relative terms. It was another guy’s car that

Sunday, and we were driving through a neighborhood known to us as “the ghetto”—the area

off Stella Link Boulevard where many of Houston’s Jews lived.

We all knew each other, or of each other, or so it seemed. Houston was already a big,

booming city, with an even bigger boom just beginning, but there were only four

synagogues: two Reform, one Conservative, one Orthodox. For Southern Jews, assimilation

was an article of faith, so the Orthodox congregation didn’t count, and the Conservative one,

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 10

though a vigorous via media, was smaller than the two Reform congregations. In any case,

the heart of social life for most Jewish teenagers was not temple, but the Jewish Community

Center on Hermann Drive, where multiple chapters of the B’nai B’rith high school

fraternities and sororities, AZA and BBG, met and mingled.

After one meeting several, of us were riding around the ghetto, having already dropped

off somebody else. We stopped to talk to someone we knew out on his or her front lawn or

driveway on that pleasant afternoon, one of the last before the interminable, intolerable heat

began. I don’t remember anything else about the incident, not even whose car I was riding in.

Whomever we stopped to talk to, the girl was sitting out front of the house next door.

A pretty Jewish girl, with long dark hair, large, brown eyes, and a slim but womanly

figure. Sitting on the lush, green front lawn like a swan in repose—legs under her and full

skirt arranged not only decorously but artfully around them, bobby socks and suede penny

loafers peeking out from under it. Perfect calm, perfect composure, an attitude entirely

unaffected. A sixteen-year-old beauty, a girl with a reputation that belied her repose. I have

no idea how she’d acquired that reputation, or if it was true, or exactly what it meant, except

that of course it had to do with sex. I knew her only by name—and the reputation. That may

have been the last glimpse I had of her. My widowed mother married her longtime boyfriend

in June, and we moved to California.

I often wondered why that image remained with me. After writing the book, I think I

know. The girl represented not only erotic possibility, but its fulfillment. At the same time

her composure suggested some quality soft and nurturing. I recalled her at once when I

encountered the Beautiful Perfect Mother sitting on her front stoop in Park Slope in Paul

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 11

Auster’s The Brooklyn Follies (2006). All right, I know what you’re thinking. If you’re not,

you should be.

Or maybe not. Maybe just a pretty girl sitting on her front lawn, who somehow became

Judy Berman sitting at the soda fountain in Dexter’s Drugstore on June 1, 1959. I wish I

could say the girl on the lawn looked up and smiled at me, as Judy does at Andy, but she

didn’t. On the other hand, she didn’t need to. She only needed to be there.

So I never knew Judy Berman or had a relationship with her. I made her up. I created her,

fabricated her and everything that happens between her and Andy. The same is true of

virtually every incident in Not Fade Away. I usually tell people who’ve read the book that of

all the incidents and episodes in it, only one actually happened to me. That is true. Most

people think it’s the beating-up scene, and I get asked if I was ever similarly beaten almost as

much as I get asked whether Andy and Judy actually had sex or not. The answer to the latter

is, I don’t know. I wasn’t there. To the former question the answer is no. I wasn’t an

imposing physical specimen at fifteen, and was reminded of it frequently enough, but I could

run faster than Andy.

And yet, at an age when I had experienced much more than adolescence, I wrote a

coming-of-age novel set at the time when I was an adolescent in a barely disguised version of

the city where I spent most of my boyhood. Though the events didn’t happen to me, I drew

other characters—even Judy Berman—from people around me.

I merely did what every novelist does, young and old, novice and master. I’d also suggest

that coming-of-age novels are no more autobiographical than any other type of fiction. If

they seem to be, it’s because, almost by definition, they offer a less refined version of the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 12

autobiographical element. I’d even guess that first-person narration is no more common to

them than to any other category or genre of fiction. It may simply be that first-person point of

view is particularly suitable to the coming-of-age story, as it is to detective stories and for the

same reason. Both genres deal with discovery, and in the first person the reader discovers

things only as the protagonist does. The problem with many first novels is not that they are

autobiographical coming-of-age narratives in the first-person, but that they are event-driven

and the events are recalled rather than fully imagined. Been there. Done that. So what?

When autobiographical first novels succeed, they do so because the author achieves

sufficient distance from the autobiography substantially to re-imagine his or her own life. To

paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, the writer always begins with reality but finally produces

something more interesting and significant than the original experience. In two supreme first

novels—A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Swann’s Way (in Proust’s case, I

exclude the unfinished false start, Jean Santeuil)—the autobiographical features are barely

disguised at all. It isn’t what Philip Roth calls “the Facts” that matter, but what the writer

does with them.

Okay, Joyce and Proust, genius trumps everything, as it does for James and Conrad. (How

many of us can mine the anxiety of moving, in middle age, from one house to another to

produce “The Turn of the Screw?”) But if so, then we have to consider the rather ludicrous

notion that autobiographical novels, especially first novels, are either works of genius or

abject failures. In fact, there’s a broad middle ground occupied by works as various as Of

Human Bondage, The Way of All Flesh, Clayhanger, This Side of Paradise, and Other

Voices, Other Rooms.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 13

Sometimes, everything hangs on the autobiographical element, the two prime examples in

American fiction being Invisible Man and To Kill a Mockingbird. Neither writer ever again

produced or published much fiction, certainly nothing remotely comparable. The personal

coming-of-age story remains not only primal, but paramount, central to everything else the

novel is about. The reason in both examples may be similar, if not the same, having at least

something to do with the stunning nature of that first book’s success, culturally as well as

artistically, and its effect on an artistic temperament essentially self-effacing. As Harper Lee

said, “I never expected any sort of success with 'Mockingbird.' I was hoping for a quick and

merciful death at the hands of the reviewers but, at the same time, I sort of hoped someone

would like it enough to give me encouragement. Public encouragement. I hoped for a little,

as I said, but I got rather a whole lot, and in some ways this was just about as frightening as

the quick, merciful death I'd expected.”

Whether I fall into this same category—at least in regard to producing more fiction—only

time will determine. On the one hand, it wasn’t long after I began Not Fade Away that it

became the first book in a projected trilogy. I’m certain that I haven’t said all I want to say

about Andy Lerner or the time and place that formed him. On the other hand, the only thing

harder to write than a second novel is a second novel that’s the second novel in a trilogy. It’s

like the middle third of a marathon, the first you ever run. You’re thoroughly warmed up,

everything is working, but there’s so far yet to go and the looming threat of The Wall. But

the point is I didn’t choose my subject. My subject chose me. As Ralph Ellison said, “the

novelist is created by the novel.”

I would amend that proposition slightly, and not very elegantly: the novelist is created by

the need to write the novel, which re-creates the novelist.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 14

Every novelist’s “back story” contains a defining circumstance—an event or a series of

related events—that compels him or her to tell (and often to retell) a particular, primal story.

There’s no originality in this observation, with its “art as neurosis” underpinning; Edmund

Wilson wrote The Wound and the Bow seventy years ago. The circumstance is almost always

traumatic, or a response to trauma: Dickens’s experience in the blacking factory,

Hemingway’s war wound, Fitzgerald’s rejection by Ginevra King, Conrad’s flight from

Poland, Dostoyevsky’s near execution as a political prisoner, Hawthorne adding the “w” to

his surname to separate himself from the ancestor who was a judge in the Salem witch trials.

Not always traumatic, however—the move of Jane Austen’s family to Bath in 1801, or her

acceptance, then refusal the next day, of the single marriage proposal she ever received;

Evelyn Waugh’s conversion to Catholicism; Faulkner emulating Hawthorne to make Falkner

more “aristocratic.” One can extrapolate this hypothesis to something more general or

abstract—Proust’s invalidism, Proust’s homosexuality; Maugham’s stammer, Maugham’s

bisexuality, the expatriation of Lawrence and Joyce; Hawthorne’s obsession with guilt—but I

think it’s always something more specific.

At any rate, it has a more specific manifestation, whatever psychological foundations

underlie it, an autobiographical event trigger reflected in the fiction. For Joyce, the event

wasn’t expatriation in the abstract, but the departure from Dublin with Nora Barnacle in June,

1904, which stands in so many ways behind Bloomsday. Similarly, Proust’s invalidism can

be traced to his first serious asthma attack at age nine and subsequent recuperative stays in

Illiers, the Combray of his novel sequence which begins with Swann’s Way.

The value of this specificity is that it reveals not only the novelist’s need to write the

novel, but also the technical and substantive contours and harmony of the work itself.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 15

Memory, which forms both the structure and subject of In Search of Lost Time, “re-creates

the novelist” from the invalid-dilettante, Marcel Proust. Similarly, Hemingway’s wound, the

culmination and summation of his war experience, and possibly of his life, in a violent

instant of time, provided the creative spur to the best of the Nick Adam’s stories and

Hemingway’s two greatest novels.

To be sure, the success of a novel doesn’t at all depend on the reader’s knowledge of this

event trigger. One doesn’t have to know of Hemingway’s wound to appreciate The Sun Also

Rises, A Farewell to Arms, “In Another Country,” or “Big Two-Hearted River.” But it’s fair

to speculate that the Hemingway style and the “code” on which his reputation rests, and the

phrases associated with that code—“grace under pressure,” “moment of truth,” “a separate

peace”—owe much to the war wound. Would either Jake Barnes or Frederic Henry have

existed without that wound? And “Hemingway the legend,” the projection of the books upon

the life, is a telling, and ultimately tragic, example of the fiction “re-creating the novelist.”

Proust’s novel even had the effect of recreating Illiers, now known as Illiers-Combray, much

as Ulysses has changed Dublin.

As I noted at the start of this book, with none of these observations do I intend to

propound a literary or creative theory. That would require both a consistency and a depth of

inquiry that I have no interest in pursuing. For the authors I’ve mentioned, one can probably

supply additional or competing event triggers—the suicide of Hemingway’s father, for

instance, or the period of Hawthorne’s “owl’s nest” literary apprenticeship. (As for an

incestuous relationship with his sister? Ask Philip Roth.) Inevitably, however, one attaches

added importance to the earliest of the experiences. As a novelist’s life proceeds, subsequent

events tend to cast additional light upon rather than redefine or replace the initial event and to

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 16

be amplified by it in turn. Conrad’s journey to the Congo was doubtless as important a

trigger to his fiction as his flight from Poland, but the fictional treatment of both depends on

“betrayal.” The link between the two is Marlow, the teller of the tales of Jim and Kurtz,

Marlow the “re-creator.”

To many readers and critics, all of this is simply irrelevant, if not anathema. At best they

can do without the autobiographical element, which seems to confirm that novelists are, by

definition, people who never get over high school. At worst they see it as a mirror that

distorts the fiction or provides too circumscribed a reflection of it, the latter confirming that

novelists are by definition people who never get over high school. And I’m ignoring, for

example, the criticism of Heart of Darkness that devalues the novella for its perceived

attitudes toward Africans and women. Those issues are outside the context of the present

discussion, though granting the validity of such issues, one can’t help but observe that the

autobiographical element might shed some light on them. My view is that this element

functions as a lens that clarifies and amplifies the fiction. Charlie Marlow is not only the

teller of the tales; it’s a critical cliché that he is also the doppelganger, the “double,” of Jim

and Kurtz. And equally the double of Joseph Conrad, as Nick Carraway is the double of both

Jay Gatsby and Scott Fitzgerald. The re-created novelist exists in the combination of the

autobiographical trigger and the artistic perspective on it. Nor does the duality rely on first-

person point of view. The same relationship exists between Quentin Compson and Thomas

Sutpen and William Faulkner in Absalom, Absalom! and a variation on it in the “we”

narration of Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily.” And the single event trigger? If Faulkner added

the letter “u” to the family name for the reason I suggested earlier, it speaks volumes about

the tragedies enacted in the novel and the story.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 17

That Ralph Ellison made the statement about the novel creating the novelist underscores

both the importance and the limitation of focusing on the autobiographical element. As

suggested, it is most obvious and least sophisticated in first novels, its primacy the result of

“immaturity” in both the technical and experiential sense. Most novelists move on, finding

other, subtler ways to integrate the primary event trigger into a broader base of experience.

Note the difference in the treatment of Bath in Austen’s Persuasion (completed in 1816) as

opposed to Northanger Abbey (completed 1796-98). No doubt other event triggers occur as a

part of that increased experience and may even exist independently of the primary event. If

the trigger to Mansfield Park (begun in 1812) was Jane Austen’s 1809 move to Chawton,

where she was allowed to live as an unmarried poor relation in a cottage on her brother,

Edward’s, estate, that does not necessarily offer a commentary on her refusal of the 1802

marriage proposal. Yeah, sure.

That process did not occur with Ralph Ellison. Having been created as a novelist by that

first, autobiographical novel, he seems to have had no novelistic existence outside or beyond

it. He had been created but not re-created. Part of the re-creation involves writing the next

novel, something that visibility did not allow Ellison to do. More recently, indeed

contemporaneously, Karl Marlantes’s Matterhorn, a novel of the Vietnam War by a Vietnam

vet, suggests a similar relationship between the novelist and his autobiographical material.

Reading the novel (whose Afterword notes that many of the character names are those of

actual fellow vets, one can’t help but doubt that Marlantes will ever produce more fiction,

certainly nothing on the same scale.

In my case, whatever the future holds, I could not have written the first novel that I did

without the need to tell that particular story. No vague sense of calling as a writer or specific

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 18

desire to write a novel ever led me to such sustained and disciplined effort. I had to discover

my subject, which was not the same thing as recounting my own life. I’d tried autobiography

before; I’d even tried a version of Judy Berman before—though she lived in Beverly Hills

and, well in advance of Steve Martin’s Shopgirl, worked at a fashionable store on Wilshire

Boulevard (Saks Fifth Avenue, where I worked in the late 1960s and met my first wife, Pat).

So, after many years and a few other false starts, what changed? A Ph.D. in English? A

divorce? A second marriage? Enough psychotherapy to put my therapist’s daughter through

Boston University? The excruciating, mind-numbing, soul-destroying boredom of working

year after year in corporate America? All of the above?

Well, partly it was the image of the girl on the lawn, which popped into my mind one

mind-numbing, soul-destroying day many, many years after the actual experience. But one

swallow does not a summer make, not even the summer of 1959. That was the germ, as

essential as the grit of sand in the oyster, but what turns that grit of sand into a pearl?

Andy Lerner’s father is dead; Andy never knew him. My own father died four months

after I was born. Seems like an event trigger to me. Except that I’d made previous attempts at

fatherless protagonists, as I had at Judy Bermans. But I hadn’t thought about the girl on the

lawn, the girl beautiful and nurturing, an “older woman” —The Beautiful Perfect Mother—in

association with a dead father. Oedipus is alive and living not in Colonnus, but Claiborne.

But is Not Fade Away just the wish fulfillment fantasy that finally created me as a

novelist? Maybe, but I don’t think so. One can have read a bit too much, as one can have had

much too much psychotherapy. To seek or experience a love that is both nurturing and sexual

is not to murder one’s father and marry one’s mother, even subconsciously and symbolically.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 19

To suggest that Judy is a substitute or replacement for Emily Lerner, that Andy feels

responsible in some way for his father’s death and guilty about sexual desire for his mother,

is to suggest not only that the novel is an expression of my own Oedipal conflict, but also

that my re-creation by the novel is a resolution of that conflict. Art as both neurosis and its

treatment. The Wound and the Band-Aid.

Was there an Oedipal, uh, “situation” in my family history? In a word, yes. Certain

features of the novel support this autobiographical connection—Marty’s paternal relationship

with Andy and their rivalry over Judy—but they have to be cherry-picked from it and

arranged on a separate plate. The question isn’t authorial intent, conscious or not; it’s not the

autobiographical element that distorts the work, but the manipulation of that element. (Just as

fiction often distorts autobiography.) Nor do readers respond to the book in this way, unless

I’m playing with the big boys, Sophocles and Shakespeare. That’ll be the day.

In other words, one has to go outside the novel itself and the relationship between novelist

and novel to develop this theory. That is the danger of the autobiographical element, but not

the limitation. It’s not enough to look at the book or the author as if each is distinct from the

other. It’s not even enough to look at the book and the author, as if the one created the other,

either in the literal way or the Ralph Ellison sense. One created the other, which re-created

the first. Brideshead Revisited, which is generally regarded as Evelyn Waugh’s most

“personal” novel (and is the only written in the first person), contains this Author’s Note: “I

am not I: thou are not he or she: they are not they.” In the same spirit, I am not Andy Lerner.

I am not even the Ronald Gordon who began the book, though I am the Ronald Gordon who

finished it and is now writing Yesterday’s Gone.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 20

The former me did, however, experience something that created the need to write the

novel. Think about what the novel is really about. Think about it in terms of the title. The

book is about loss, and its title is Not Fade Away. I didn’t get the title from Proust, or from

Waugh, but I might have.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 21

Chapter 2

A River Runs through It

Not Fade Away takes place in a large southeast Texas city during the summer of 1959.

Claiborne is a version of Houston so thinly disguised—not only in its location, but in many

of its particulars—as to be all but transparent. As more than one agent I queried asked me,

why disguise it at all?

Why did Arnold Bennett change the six inter-linked towns of the Staffordshire Potteries in

the English Midlands where he grew up into the Five Towns of his regional fiction? Bennett

said he did it for euphony, though that seems the least of the reasons for the change. Gopher

Prairie, the setting of Main Street, sounds less awkward than Sinclair Lewis’s own Sauk

Centre, Minnesota—and is much funnier as well. But my purpose was neither euphonious

nor satirical. The more pertinent question for me, given the southern setting, would probably

be, why did Faulkner change Oxford, Mississippi, to Jefferson? Or, more apposite to the

autobiographical element—especially given the author’s insistence on the primal importance

of that element in the writing of fiction—why did Mark Twain change Hannibal, Missouri, to

St. Petersburg?

For one thing, I needed a river rather than Buffalo Bayou, which divides Houston north

and south much as the La Salle River divides Claiborne. The dark-haired girl sitting on her

front lawn gradually assumed a place within a more panoramic image. I began to see a city, a

bustling southern city on a big river, a city that both was and wasn’t Houston.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 22

Partly, I wanted to provide local color. I saw a broader, more vibrant stream than the all

but stagnant bayou, with busy docks, brisk boat traffic, and the play of light and shadow on

the water. I saw bridges spanning the river, the Five Bridges that pay homage to Arnold

Bennett (the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation). Obviously, though, I was beginning not only

to replicate Houston, but to change it. For one thing, the La Salle River of the book flows all

the way to Fredonia Bay and Gulf Isle. No Ship Channel connects the city to Galveston Bay

or to Galveston itself. The existence of the La Salle may also, ultimately, be attributable to a

question I asked myself as a child: If Houston’s toniest neighborhood is called River Oaks,

where’s the river?

Twain, of course, already had a river, the river of American literature— “a strong, brown

god,” in T.S. Eliot’s phrase (Eliot the Englishman of “The Dry Salvages,” but born a

Missourian)—so Twain must have had another reason for renaming Hannibal. By the time he

came to write Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, he’d already produced the non-fictional

Life on the Mississippi. The first sentence of that book reads, “The Mississippi is well worth

writing about.” Understatement, indeed. The fourth chapter begins, “When I was a boy, there

was but one permanent ambition among my comrades in our village on the west bank of the

Mississippi River. That was, to be a steamboatman.” In that book Twain draws from the real

Hannibal all that it has to offer him, without ever mentioning it by name. It stands outside his

“one permanent ambition” except as “I said I never would come home again till I was a pilot

and could come in glory.” I’d suggest that for the novels he required a more imagined

version of his boyhood home.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 23

Most simply, such a change gives the novelist more freedom to invent. More significantly,

it helps provide the narrative distance from autobiographical material that I discussed in the

previous chapter. But what, exactly, does that distance mean, and what does it achieve?

Narrative distance in fiction, in my view, refers to any strategy or technique that

depersonalizes or objectifies personal material—experiences, attitudes, causes. That is the

significant difference between even the most autobiographical of fiction and the particular

strain of “memoir” that has long infected the literary marketplace. In the latter, by definition,

author and subject or “story” are one and rarely indivisible. The interest of the reader

depends on extra-literary factors: the author is a celebrity or a political figure or a criminal or

all three; the subject is addiction or sexual abuse or other disreputable activity. Not all of

these elements are required (though no publisher would turn down such a book), but at least

one of them is. The hook is the confessional nature of the narrative. It is neither

autobiography, per se, nor a my-life-with someone more or equally famous. The only

“distance” the author achieves is, “This is what I was (positive or negative), and this is what I

became (the opposite).” With the coda attached to all autobiography, but absolutely crucial to

the confessional memoir. As I remember it. The treatment may be subjective—the narrator

may be as “unreliable” as any fictional one and the perspective on the experience somewhere

between “this is what they did to me” to “this is what I did to me”—but it better not be

invented. Just ask James Frey of A Million Little Pieces infamy.

Fiction, including autobiographical first novels, aims for something else. At its best, of

course, it strives for art and for aesthetic beauty, but a reader’s interest or pleasure need not

necessarily depend on them. The action of the story may be exciting, the characters

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 24

provocative, the setting exotic, the time period fascinating, or all of the above, without being

art or even consistently well executed. Look no further than Gone with the Wind.

Such fiction sounds not like art at all, but escapism. And all fiction isn’t escapist—except

as it involves the opposite compact between reader and author that the confessional memoir

does. In a novel, the reader expects not reality reported—even through the filter of memory

—but reality heightened and transformed, even to the point of fantasy, the supernatural, or

science fiction.

Or, in the case of coming-of-age novels, wish fulfillment. If the confessional memoir

tends to be cautionary, the coming-of-age tale is celebratory. The protagonist of the former is

(usually) a victim—of greed, lust, ambition, or some other powerful desire, his or her own or

someone else’s. The protagonist of the coming-of-age story is a hero or heroine. As

“autobiography,” the coming-of-age novel allows the author to get right what had not been

got right in actual experience, to become the hero or heroine he or she had been unable to be.

(If Not Fade Away were really my autobiography, it would have to be called Young and

Stupid.)

A novelist achieves this transformation not by transcribing reality, but by letting

imagination work alchemically upon it. A novel isn’t “life as we know it,” but life as we

know it arranged in surprising and satisfying ways—technically, stylistically, thematically.

The presentation relies not on invention alone, but on the structure of inference and

implication that invention raises. This is a process altogether different from reporting

autobiographical experience. The greater the distance between the novelist and that

experience, the broader the imaginative canvas and the possibilities for art, beauty, and

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 25

meaning. To repeat, most first novelists do not possess either the skill or the range of

experience to accomplish this transformation beyond mere wish fulfillment.

James Joyce needed Dublin, because he needed the tragedy of Irish history to fuel his art.

Dublin as evidenced in Joyce’s fiction is more than the place where much of that history

occurred; it is also an objective correlative of the tragedy of those events. As Auden wrote of

Yeats, “Mad Ireland hurt you into poetry.” As Yeats himself said of the 1916 Easter

Uprising, “a terrible beauty is born.” Joyce the novelist achieved sufficient narrative or

aesthetic distance both literally and temporally: he left Dublin as a young man and never

returned. Stephen Dedaelus serves as the imaginative link to Dublin not because he is James

Joyce, but because he is Joyce re-imagined and re-created as both artist and resident

Dubliner.

Which brings me back to Twain. One could posit a number of reasons for a novelist

changing the name of his home town, including the potential reaction of the real

townspeople, though Twain hardly seems the type to have worried about that. In any case, a

simple name change won’t work, as Thomas Wolfe discovered with Ashville/Altamont in

Look Homeward, Angel.

I think Twain replaced the name of Hannibal as way of elevating the fiction to the status

of myth—the archetypal New World tale of the “American Adam,” which begins with the

innocent hero born by the water and ends with him, in Huck’s words, “lighting out for the

territory.” This is at least part of what Hemingway meant when he said that all modern

American writing comes from Twain’s novel. Though the mythic strain had already begun

with Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales, try reading one of them today rather than Huck Finn.

Hemingway may well have had the same turgid experience, a distaste for “Fennimore

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 26

Cooper’s Literary Offenses” that also connects him to Mark Twain. I’ve long thought Cooper

chose the collective name for the five Natty Bumppo novels both wishfully and defensively,

anticipating that they wouldn’t wear well.

Twain’s purpose, in any case, was the opposite of Joyce’s—to remove his hero from

history, from being “sivilized.” Thus, one could credit the replacement of Hannibal with St.

Petersburg to Twain’s mordant sense of humor, but it’s more than that. The change allows

him to have it both ways: to elevate reality or history to myth and to comment ironically on

the history.

Similarly, though Faulkner needed the tragedy of southern history as a creative spur, he

didn’t need a real, objective Oxford. He needed the fictional Yoknapatawpha county, because

he too was recreating history as myth—though Ike McCaslin is his Natty

Bumppo/Huckleberry Finn, there is no territory to light out for, only the snake in the Adamic

garden after the Fall to be acknowledged as “Oleh, grandfather!” in “Go Down, Moses”—

and Oxford becomes Jefferson.

It may be a minor or narrow truth, but it’s easier to create a fictional version of a small

town that really exists than a big city, Gopher Prairie rather than Zenith. (Lewis, however,

did pretty well until, like Wolfe, he blew it by trying to create a whole fictional state;

Winnemac works no better than Catawba.) One might argue that in American literature, the

treatment of real cities—New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New

Orleans and, increasingly, Miami—is itself mythic. There’s no need to disguise them in order

to heighten their reality.

But Houston, Texas? It’s a city no one knows. Most people mistake it for a southwestern

city, like Dallas or Austin or El Paso, rather than recognizing it as the quintessentially

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 27

southern city that it is, as much so as New Orleans or Biloxi or Mobile. I invented Claiborne

and the river not because Claiborne sounds better than Houston—it doesn’t, and Buffalo

Bayou offers tantalizing possibilities of the Gopher Prairie sort—but because I wanted to

locate Andy Lerner in the same fictional territory occupied by Natty Bumppo, Huck Finn,

and others like them. At one point in my own callow innocence as a writer, I considered

naming my protagonist slightly differently and opening the novel with the line: “Call me

Adam.” (Maybe there is a God, because I didn’t.)

I also wanted to “place” Andy in regard to Claiborne itself. Another function of the river

was to separate him from the rest of the city, to establish him in an older neighborhood with a

past, a history more mythic than factual, and to isolate him from the postwar social and

economic mainstream of even the tightly knit Jewish community. The real Houston

neighborhood north of Buffalo Bayou known as “the Heights” became Lawton Heights of the

novel, though with additional characteristics borrowed from the Montrose District

immediately south of the bayou.

I wanted to place Andy at an historical four-way stop—American, Southern, Texan,

Jewish—on that watery highway which extends from one end of American fiction to another,

from Lake Otsego and Walden Pond to the Big Two-Hearted River that feeds Twain’s

Mississippi, which flows past the green light on Daisy Buchanan’s dock into Ahab’s ocean.

This was an intersection that Houston couldn’t quite supply, either in its physical geography

or its mythic persona. In fact, it does not possess the latter. Houston is subsumed in the

powerful myth of Texas.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 28

I should at this point offer a definition. By “myth” I don’t mean a story that isn’t true or a

story no longer believed to be true. I mean just the opposite—a story that is truer than true,

truer than the facts, because the myth implies or elucidates a truth that trumps the facts.

A simple example: Writer/director Oliver Stone’s theory of the Kennedy assassination as

dramatized in the film JFK at best distorts or ignores the facts (as we know them) and at

worst invents and performs loopy paranoid riffs on those facts, but it feels true in exactly the

same way that the fictional The Manchurian Candidate (1962 version) does. It achieves an

emotional truth about political extremism and the way government works that the known

facts may powerfully suggest but do not prove. All stories are rooted in myth, and another

way of stating the problem of autobiography in fiction is to suggest that personal experience

needs to be placed within a mythic framework in order to be of interest or significance to

anyone else. And history is but another form of storytelling, as the movies discovered early

and often (see chapter 19 of this book).

Ironically, with the change from Houston to Claiborne, I created an historical problem for

myself. If Claiborne was nominally Houston, where was Houston? In a state with a city or

town named after anyone who figured in a unique and colorful history, however

mythologized that history, where was the place named after the state’s greatest hero? If

there’s a Sam Houston, where’s Houston? If there’s no Houston, because there’s no Sam,

then who was the Claiborne who gave his name to the state’s largest city? In short, what

happens to Texas history in the fictional world of Not Fade Away? Everything else about

Texas—except Gulf Isle, the imaginary Galveston connected by the imaginary river to the

imaginary Houston—exists outside the book.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 29

I had two choices. Either Sam Houston remained Sam Houston, or he became Sam

Claiborne. With the first option I basically tried to ignore the where-is-Houston-the-city?

problem. It never existed or, somewhere down the road, outside the frame or beyond the

proscenium, it coexists peacefully with Claiborne. With the second, I changed one critical

element of Texas history, but remained faithful to every other fact. This change would also

eliminate the problem of who was the eponymous Claiborne if I allowed Sam Houston to

exist in my fictional universe.

Neither solution really satisfied me, but I chose the first. Houston existed, but somewhat in

the sense of there being no there there. In this way, I took the pressure off Claiborne as

Houston, how the former deviates from or conceals the latter. Imagine the questions: “Mr.

Gordon, is the State Theater in Not Fade Away the Metropolitan or the Loew’s State or the

Majestic? North by Northwest played at the Loew’s in 1959, but Rio Bravo played at the

Majestic.” “If Lawton University is Rice University, why is it out in the Heights instead of on

South Main Street?”

Whom was Claiborne named after? I hadn’t figured that out yet. But who knows off the

top of his or her head the man whom Denver was named after? (Hint: he didn’t write “Rocky

Mountain High.”)

Still, I wasn’t completely satisfied, and I never gave up on a better solution. Finally, one

occurred to me. I like it because it “derives” from a particular historical fact—Sam’s

Houston’s opposition to southern secession, which led to his removal as Governor of Texas

in 1861. As part of the political blowback, the city’s name was changed from Houston to

Claiborne. You will learn more of Elisha Holman Claiborne, a fictional ally of Houston’s

arch rival Mirabeau B. Lamar, in Yesterday’s Gone and in the third novel, My Back Pages.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 30

History isn’t like omniscience. In fiction, you can fuck with it—up to a point.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 31

Chapter 3

There Was a Time

The title of this chapter comes from Wordsworth, the opening of his “Immortality Ode.” I

might instead have borrowed a title from Thomas Wolfe—Of Time and the River. I know, I

discussed the river first, but the allusion to Wolfe also applies. Fact is, I’ve been talking

about both time and place all along.

I never considered setting the book in any year but 1959. That year has enormous

significance for me, beginning with the death of Buddy Holly on February 3rd. Something

else died also that year—the Eisenhower era. John Kennedy won the presidential election of

1960 long before he officially announced his candidacy in January, 1960, but few people

realized it because of the cloud raised by the religious issue. I maintain that if JFK had been

Protestant, the election wouldn’t have been close. He wouldn’t have needed Joe Kennedy’s

money, or Sam Giancanna’s, or the dead vote in Illinois—not after the first TV debate with

Richard Nixon, anyway. The ostensible issue of Kennedy’s youth, by which everyone meant

his supposed inexperience, was another smokescreen. Kennedy won because he was young,

and Eisenhower had grown old. Nixon was an old man on the day he was born.

Despite being a precocious reader in 1959, I wasn’t a precocious thinker. Nevertheless, I

knew JFK was going to win the 1960 election. I may have known it as early as 1956, when I

watched the Democratic convention with—AUTOBIOGRAPHY ALERT!—my

grandmother, and Kennedy made a gracious concession speech after losing the vice-

presidential nomination in a floor vote. I knew it, intuitively, because I was young. It was the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 32

older generation (an imprecise, but useful term), my grandmother included, that talked about

Kennedy’s Catholicism and remembered Al Smith in 1928, the older generation that said

Jack Kennedy wasn’t ready. Some people hold that the 1960s didn’t really begin until the

Kennedy assassination and, a few months later, the release of the Beatles film, A Hard Day’s

Night. It’s an interesting and telling juxtaposition, but I say the sixties began in 1959. (So

does the non-fiction writer, Fred Kaplan, in his recent book entitled, appropriately enough,

1959.) Judy Berman is a prototypical sixties girl.

It’s no accident that the one movie that she and Andy see together is North by Northwest.

That film, rather than Ben-Hur (the Oscar winner), Anatomy of a Murder, or The Diary of

Anne Frank is the best American film of 1959 (by a whisker over Rio Bravo, an eyelash over

Some Like It Hot). It is both a summation of fifties zeitgeist and style and a film whose

action, settings, and characterizations deal in prescient transitions. Some of these reflect the

current moment: train to air travel, the almost incidental information that the hero is twice-

divorced, the replacement of the tight, taxi-bound world of Manhattanite Roger Thornhill

—“I’ve never even been in Pittsburgh””—with the frenetic itinerary of the elusive George

Kaplan. Others are prophetic: the fluid, illusory nature of identity; the Cold War as political

theater and role-playing, the replacement of personal detachment and complacency with

empathy and commitment.

Not Fade Away is essentially a comic novel, but it not only begins and ends with the death

of a major character, it is pervaded by death. Death defines the back stories of Bernie Lerner

and Grandpa Ben Kaplan, and it pervades the references to certain public figures. As a year,

1959 plays tuneful variations on mortality, an air by turns tragic (Buddy Holly, Kay

Kendall), elegiac (Rio Bravo), mawkish (the Browns’ “Three Bells”) and grotesquely,

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 33

ironically comic (Bobby Darin’s “Mack the Knife”). It is the year the music died, the year

the country began to lose—what? Not its innocence. No country that fought a civil war over

slavery, created Jim Crow, practiced de facto genocide against a Native-American

population, interned its Japanese citizens during World War Two, and allowed the postwar

depredations of HUAC, McCarthyism, and J. Edgar Hoover could ever make such a claim.

Not innocence, then, but the youthful illusion of it.

That’s why JFK was a restorative, necessary to maintain the illusion. In his inaugural, the

young, vigorous president—chronically if not desperately ill, his viguh maintained by

cortisone, amphetamines and a compliant press—spoke both of a “New Frontier” and of “a

long twilight struggle.” The 1960s became more than the decade of youth. It became the

decade of youth afraid of being condemned to premature death. Never trust anyone over

thirty—the folks who brought you the Vietnam War.

But, though the music died, it didn’t fade away. The novel isn’t just about death. It is

about love and death and about the redemptive power of love and remembrance. Most

importantly, it is a novel not about 1959, but about remembering 1959. “Love is love. Not

fade away.”

The earliest drafts of the book made the retrospective cast of the narrative central and

explicit from the opening line. I am speaking of the very first opening line, first of many, but

literally the first line of the book that occurred to me. “The summer heat in Claiborne is

something you never forget.” And the brief initial section, which was all atmospheric scene-

setting, concluded: “Or so it seems in memory, at a great remove of time and distance.”

This was before I learned THE RULES. These include avoidance of any form of the verb

“to seem.” Another is that the end of the book should be in the beginning. My original

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 34

opening line seemed—oops! . . . I thought I was pretty close to the mark on that one with my

original first line. But another THE RULES is, start close to the action. Above all the reader

craves action and dialogue and won’t tolerate any leisurely openings carefully establishing

and delineating time and place. Fair enough—I think (though I’ll have more to say later

about that notion). In subsequent drafts the opening paragraph retained the retrospective

element, but gradually became no more than a few sentences, all of them built around and

leading up to “the lie that dwells at the heart of things.” The end in the beginning.

Only when it reached the “line edit” stage with a professional editor, the theoretical final

step prior to a marketing effort in some way less inept and dispiriting than my own, did some

of the retrospection disappear. In fact, it all did, though much of it I later restored.

Initial edits of the book were done by Lenore Raven, who also provided the epigraph to

this book. Lenore is a capable editor, and from her I learned much in terms of both substance

and technique. On my own I got many things flat out wrong. Like all of us, though, Lenore

has blind spots. She didn’t come right out and say that the reader is stupid, though she often

referred to a former boss who thought that. A tipping point occurred when Lenore brought

Rick Usher on board to assist with the line edit. He recommended more “immediacy.” In his

view, the retrospective narrative technique and detailed descriptions of time and place

distanced the reader from the story. Author distance, good. Reader distance, BAD!!!.

To my statement that I preferred the David Copperfield (retrospective) to the Holden

Caulfield (it’s happening now or last week or last month) approach, Lenore emailed back:

The retrospective framework removes the reader one backward step from the story.

Andy's summer already happened. Andy already lived through it. When we see him

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 35

get pummeled by Rodney, we don't have to worry about the severity of the beating,

because we already know Andy lived to tell the story. The adult narrator doesn't

appear to show signs of brain damage. So in a way, a turning point in your book, an

intense plot spike, loses much of its intensity. We really don't want to undermine

ourselves in that way. We don't want the reader distanced every time a chapter ends

or begins and the adult Andy shows up again.

 

I accepted this reasoning, if only because I had no desire to write the Great Unpublished

American Novel. The opening chapter became and remained, with some tweaking, the

published version. But I couldn’t shake the feeling that by giving up retrospection entirely

(although that wasn’t exactly what Lenore said), I was eliminating something crucial. It was

whatever had made me write the book and had made me the writer I was and am.

The logic of the “it’s-happening-now” approach eludes me. When is now? When would

Andy be recounting Rodney’s attack? As it’s happening? Probably not, no more than the

epistolary, eighteenth-century Clarissa Harlowe describes her rape by Lovelace in medias

res. (Okay, she was drugged.) So where is the line between now and then? The point is all

storytelling is retrospective. That’s why most fiction is written in the past tense, and why

most attempts at immediacy through a present tense narration achieve little more than to

annoy the reader. This reader, anyway.

More pertinently, does any reader ever doubt that Andy survived the bullying, or even that

he bested Rodney? It seemed to me—uh, appeared to me (it’s forbidden by THE RULES to

seem but apparently okay to appear)—that there might be as much interest, if not more, in

how Andy accomplished his revenge. That and what it cost him. The how might not demand

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 36

retrospection; any examination of the cost, however, is a retrospective process. As this book

is retrospective; you, the reader, know that Not Fade Away was published, so doesn’t your

interest lie in how I accomplished it and what it cost me? (Short answer: a lot.)

But, all fiction being inherently retrospective, how retrospective was my novel to be?

How far was it between 1959 and “now?” Andy could have realized the cost of his victory an

hour, a day, or a month later. Why separate him by many years from the events he narrates?

Consider loss of innocence in a coming-of-age story in terms of the “it’s-happening-now”

mode. The problem isn’t that the impact of the loss is undercut by the youth of the

protagonist, by limited experience and understanding. Certain types of loss become the more

affecting and significant because of youth, as in Alice Sebold’s The Lovely Bones. But it runs

counter to the celebratory nature of the coming-of-age tale, which rests on the resilience of

youth. In first-person narratives that are “happening now,” the reader must supply the

irrevocability of the loss. Otherwise, the narrative is incomplete. Look at the exception that

proves the rule, and you will see that Huck Finn’s tale is subtly retrospective. The passage of

time is another way of establishing narrative distance, of objectifying personal experience.

Samuel Clemens becomes Mark Twain, who writes the opening of the novel: “You don’t

know me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but

that ain’t no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth mainly.

There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth. That is nothing. I never

seen anybody but lied one time or another.”

Lenore was right enough. The elaborate retrospective framework might be an effective

literary conceit (in more ways than one), satisfying to a Ukrainian audience. But I’d never

have even a Ukrainian audience if the same strategy kept the book from being published.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 37

I decided to let my title do a lot of the retrospective work.

You’ll find that in this book there’s no chapter on selecting a title, and little discussion of

it. That I never considered any other title for long—no uncertainties or agonizing choices—

should tell you something. That should have told me something sooner than it did. Because I

finally did see what I meant, why it never occurred to me to call the novel Love Me Tender or

You Send Me or Yakkety-Yak. The book is about the music dying, but not fading away.

Yes, there is a complementary element. Andy Lerner begins as a sort of “Invisible Boy” in

his family and community, but refuses to fade away. The rising arc of the book is his

increasing visibility, the building of a strong identity and sense of self. The top of the arc is

the nearly simultaneous passing of algebra, the defeat of Rodney, and the winning of Judy.

Then a dying fall—the loss of Great-Grandpa Simon, the loss of Judy, the discovery not only

of the lie that dwells at the heart of things, but the lie. The death, in short, of innocence.

Another of THE RULES for aspiring novelists is that in a query letter you’re supposed to

be able to describe your book in a single, telling line, like a screenwriter pitching a script.

“Citizen Kane meets Mrs. Miniver.” Mine was “Woody Allen meets Harper Lee.” A better

though more pedestrian one might be “Knowledge gained is innocence lost.” The problem

with such a description (not to mention the need for one) is first that it’s a cliché and second

that, though it tells you something, it doesn’t tell you nearly enough. The significance and

ultimate power of the story, if they exist at all, are not in the experiencing of it, but in the

remembering of it, in the placing of it in a larger context—personal, historical, and mythic.

But, with one exception, none of it really happened to me. I took the autobiographical

element and recast it in terms of a retrospective view of Claiborne. Time and the river.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 38

Chapter 4

The Autobiographical Element: Part 2

I realize now that my father’s death was the great and primal loss of my life, not least

because of its close juxtaposition to my birth. On the other hand, I never knew him. I also

had a surrogate father in my godfather, Jack Lehmann, who took me to movies and ball

games and miniature golf, encouraged me in Boy Scouts, and listened to me kvetch about any

number of things. As a child, then, I seldom consciously felt the lack of a father.

The wound that I did experience, consciously and as a raw and painful constant was the

loss of Houston at the particular time I lost it. That was in 1962, not long after I saw the

pretty, dark-haired Jewish girl sitting on her front lawn.

Families move all the time. They always have and always will. I don’t know for sure why

it took me so long to get over it. I only did so, finally, by writing Not Fade Away.

What exactly did I lose, especially as I gained a great deal? As avid a moviegoer as Andy

Lerner, a devourer of fan magazines, in Los Angeles I lived not far from Beverly Hills,

where I could see real movie stars in the fashionable stores on Wilshire Boulevard. The TV

series Mr. Novak filmed exteriors at my high school. I got James Franciscus’s autograph.

James-fucking-Franciscus! Mr. Novak himself, and soon to become Youngblood Hawke,

Longstreet, Doc Elliott. My English teacher of several semesters, John Nicholson, became

another surrogate father and the most enduring friendship of my life. (Not Fade Away is

dedicated to him.) He introduced me to serious literature, encouraged me to write, and

listened to me kvetch about any number of things. In twelfth grade, my gym locker was next

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 39

to Sidney Wicks’s. I attended UCLA in the midst of the long championship run in basketball

that featured Sidney prominently, not to mention Lew Alcindor. Kareem, man! Fucking

Jabar! I used to see him in the Student Union. He was tall, taller even than Sidney.

L.A. Paradise of celebrity. I worked out at the Bruce Conner Gym on Little Santa Monica

and Boulevard near Westwood. Arthur O’ Connell and Richard Jaeckel did too. Nice guys,

Oscar nominees (proving the two categories aren’t mutually exclusive). Just before the 1967

Academy Awards, O’Connell confided to me that he’d voted for Steve McQueen in The

Sand Pebbles for Best Actor. John Kerr worked out there too—Lieutenant Cable from South

Pacific. Younger than springtime, gayer than laughter.

So Houston wasn’t Paradise Lost. For starters, it’s Houston. Heat, humidity, hurricanes,

bugs. Big bugs. More importantly, I had spent a large part of my boyhood being depressed,

ever more seriously depressed, and trying to hide it. You couldn’t be depressed in those days,

especially if you were a kid. You could be an introvert, a bookworm, a problem child, even a

juvenile delinquent, but you couldn’t be depressed. Depression was a MENTAL ILLNESS!!!

They gave you shock treatments. These sounded a lot like junior high, possibly even worse.

By the spring of 1962, I was recovering from a severe depression, which had lasted most

of the previous fall and winter. The oddest things would suddenly pull me out of such

episodes. Hearing Patti Page’s recording of “Cape Cod” for the first time, James Cagney

scaling the proscenium in Yankee Doodle Dandy, the “Clair de lune” theme in Letter from an

Unknown Woman, the last scene of Breakfast at Tiffany’s (the movie), a book fortuitously

chosen for a first reading—Pride and Prejudice or Nostromo. (I know. Nostromo?) Henry

Esmond diverted the only thoughts I ever had of suicide. One depression lifted when a friend

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 40

asked me if I’d seen the movie Cape Fear (the original version) and I replied, “I don’t have

to. I live there.”

In early ’62, driving might also have been a factor, and dating too. I was discovering that

girls liked me. My first date was to Spartacus, but at least it wasn’t with Spartacus.

Everything after that was an improvement. Cruising, dating, talking on the phone, going out

for pizza after parties and movies, making out to Johnny Mathis records. All of which I could

do, and did do, in Los Angeles as well. I also made visits back to Houston, including a couple

of extended stays in summer and a memorable wedding weekend. I kept my friends there. So

what was the big whup?

Well, I never wrote about Los Angeles, not well or successfully. The same applies (so far)

to anything contemporary.

Here’s what I found out long before I became a writer, and perhaps the only sense in

which the phrase you can’t go home again is objectively true. I lost more than a place when I

left Houston. Put it another way, I didn’t really lose the place at all. I lost a time, a moment

made briefer even than it had to be by the move to Los Angeles.

In that spring of 1962, for me, everything was in place, everything was possible, and it all

coalesced around the image of a pretty young girl sitting on her front lawn. Maybe if she’d

moved to Los Angeles as well, I wouldn’t have lost everything. She didn’t, and I did.

Maybe things would have been different if I’d fixed instead on the Chevy Impala, a Super

Sport with bucket seats parked in her driveway. But that was just the point. I’d had enough of

autoeroticism. I wanted the real thing. I wanted the Golden Girl.

Love and sex and the whole damn thing, forever associated with a particular place and

moment in time. But not the entire explanation for my sense of irrevocable loss. Young as I

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 41

was, something was lost only because I thought it was lost. I was in another country, but the

wench wasn’t dead. Not for the first time, or the last, I was overreacting. Or depressed.

But depressions pass, even without shock treatments. With the right antidepressant drug,

they even go away entirely. I was, however, free of severe cyclical depression for a long time

before I began to write Not Fade Away.

I thought it was lost because it was lost. It should have been different.

To get right what had not been got right.

The girl looks up, our eyes meet, and I act on that look.

Or she doesn’t look up, and I act anyway.

To become the hero one hadn’t been able to be.

But you can’t go home again. Except that you can. It took me a long time to discover that.

What is home if not the central station of the past, the true north of memory? There we

return like faithful pilgrims to a sacred spring, eager to bathe anew in early innocence and

certitude, only to sink once more into the lie that dwells at the heart of things.

Though we yearn for the eternal, reclaimable Eden, we are born into time and history.

That is the connection between personal experience and our experience as a people. We all

live, and always have lived, on Matthew Arnold’s “darkling plain . . . Where ignorant armies

clash by night.” On the shore of Ahab’s ocean lies Dover Beach.

We light the darkness by telling stories to convince ourselves otherwise. And at the center

of those stories we place heroes, be they Hector and Achilles, Moses and Jesus, King Arthur,

Sir Lancelot, and Don Quixote, the Ancient Mariner, David Copperfield, Sherlock Holmes,

Huck Finn, Jay Gatsby, Holden Caulfield, or Atticus Finch. To whatever extent we

extrapolate from these stories or take them literally, they at once provide and comment upon

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 42

ideals and codes of conduct, mores and manners, and the vagaries of human psychology and

behavior. They are the myths by which we live, at once truer than true and subject to constant

questioning and revision. A commonplace synonym of “to lie,” of course, is “to tell a story.”

I became a novelist only when my subject tapped me on the shoulder and said, “Here I

am.” I had lost the Eden that wasn’t Eden. I could redeem that loss only by remembering it,

by understanding it for what it was, and by placing it in a larger framework. Andy says at the

end of Not Fade Away, “Weeks and months would pass before I arrived at even a minimal

acceptance of what I learned that night in the garage.” For his creator, the process and the

period of time it involved were exponential. I had to accept that the past was my subject and

that for me, it lay in Houston. Houston compelled me to write Not Fade Away. Houston,

despite its imperfections and because of them, has a history. Los Angeles does too, but it is

subsumed in the movies. It has not novelists, but screenwriters. Like the term, the occupation

is a contradiction in terms.

Interestingly, there was another event trigger in my life and work. I mentioned a wedding

I attended in Houston. I was twenty-two, the wedding that of my first cousin.

As a groomsman, I was paired with a bridesmaid from Manhattan, a cousin of the bride.

We hit it off, but it proved to be transitory, weekend sort of thing. I pointed out to her that the

hotel where the rehearsal dinner and wedding were held was the same hotel where, in 1954,

my Great-Aunt Evelyn had jumped to her death from the ninth floor. A chronically depressed

aunt, who had had shock treatments. What a bummer. It’s not, like, a family trait, is it, Ron?

Clearly, this “relationship” wasn’t going anywhere. We never did get together in New

York, as we promised each other we would. Nevertheless, that weekend made an impression

on me. It was the first thing I ever wrote about in a sustained fashion. A short story that

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 43

became a novella that became a novel. And a screenplay. All set in Los Angeles, the heroine

the shopgirl at Saks.

The autobiographical experience had occurred in Houston, but I couldn’t connect it to

Houston. I hadn’t yet learned to connect it to, for instance, the great-aunt who leaped to her

death from the ninth floor of the Warwick Hotel.

None of those earlier efforts was all that good, and not only because they were early. (To

be fair to myself, they weren’t all that bad either.) You can’t lose what you’ve never had. So

I didn’t really become a writer until I invented a story of love won and lost and the

redemptive power not only of the love, but of its loss. The deaths that occur in Not Fade

Away and the triumph over a schoolyard bully are complementary. Death doesn’t mean the

loss of love, but the loss of love is a kind of death. So is depression. Let those who will

interpret the psychological underpinnings of the book as they like. For me Andy’s triumph

over relentless bullying expresses my triumph over the relentless bullying of depression.

We can love what is dead only by remembering it. The dead live on only in the memories

of the living. They die, but they do not fade away. As Philip Roth says in Everyman, “The

flesh melts away, but the bones endure.” Certainly, though, the advantage is to the living,

brief as it may be. Like Trollope’s Johnny Eames, who is somehow a better man because Lily

Dale will not marry him, Andy becomes a better man because he and Judy go their separate

ways. But how do we know that? Andy only suggests the future on the last page of the book.

I’ve talked for longer than I intended about autobiographical fiction and coming-of-age

novels without invoking the term bildungsroman. Not Fade Away is not a bildungsroman.

The Andy Lerner trilogy is. More than that, it’s a kunstlerroman. Look it up. I had to.

The second book is called Yesterday’s Gone, the third My Back Pages. Stay tuned.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 44

PART II

________________________________________________________________________

First Draft

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 45

Chapter 5

Starting from San Francisco

I spent four years on the first draft of Not Fade Away. It ran to eight-hundred-fifty-three typed

pages of double-spaced, twelve-point Times New Roman text. As I said at the outset of this

book, I write with the speed of Flaubert. On the other hand, considering that writing was not my

day job—one reason for my Flaubert-like pace—I didn’t consider that bad progress.

In my naiveté I didn’t regard it as a first draft—at least not in the first-of-many, and-then-

many-more sense. I wasn’t, however, completely naïve or, for that matter, colossally conceited. I

knew the book needed to be shorter. How many eight-hundred-fifty-page first novels do you see

in the bookstores? I just thought the process of making it shorter would be different. More about

that in Part III of this book.

Sometimes I think my back story could begin here. It’s possible I finally became a novelist

when I bought a personal computer. It isn’t that word processing and windowing technology

make writing easier; they make rewriting easier. More about that later as well.

In addition to a computer, the most important “tool” I employed in that first draft was my own

memory. I retained almost total recall of my own summer of 1959 and the months immediately

surrounding it, from the death of Buddy Holly in February to JFK’s official announcement of his

presidential candidacy on January 2, 1960. That detailed recall persists to this day, though I have

no precise memory of what I was doing last year on today’s date. (So, you ask, if what happened

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 46

to Andy Lerner in 1959 didn’t happen to you, what did happen to you in 1959? The truth is, I

have no idea. Puberty, perhaps.)

The point for the present discussion is that I did little formal research for the book beyond

basic fact-checking and verification of my memory. What was the price in 1959 of a quart of

Borden’s milk or a loaf of Rainbo bread? Which film was released first, The Diary of Anne

Frank or North by Northwest? When did Nixon’s “kitchen debate” with Khrushchev occur in

relation to the two Major League All-Star games played that summer? For “background,” I

immersed myself in the cultural, political, sports, and show biz trivia of the period beyond what I

already recalled. I’m pretty good, but it’s probably just as well I didn’t remember that Lawrence

Welk and Alice Lon feuded over the amount of leg she was exposing on Welk’s TV show.

All this information I derived, in the period just before the advent of Internet search engines,

from microfilm copies of the daily Houston Post (now defunct) in the Rice University library. In

those days I made at least one trip a year from San Francisco to Houston—at Thanksgiving to

visit my second wife’s family in San Antonio, with often a night in Austin as well. Debby

worked in the Texas legislature in the 1970s, and the bar at the Driskill Hotel is a favorite haunt

of ours. The booted, string-tied, fat-jowled pols still ogle the leggy cocktail waitresses, stick $50

tips in their décolleté, and paw the buxom, big-haired legislative assistants, except that they (the

pols) are mostly Republicans now rather than the Democrats of the Dolph (pronounced “Doff”)

Briscoe era. At any rate, over the period of writing the first draft of Not Fade Away, I basically

read The Houston Post for all of 1959 and took long-hand notes on yellow legal pads.

I also jotted down particulars about scenes I was going to write or great, magical lines that

occurred to me. (Virtually every one of them now resides in the requisite “Murder Your

Darlings” file.) Such planning notes did not, however, run to many pages. I still have no idea

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 47

how to “outline” a novel or what such an outline might look like. I’ve never seen a sample of

such a document, even in all the Howtu-write-a-novel books.

What I have seen is the “outline” for A Fable, which William Faulkner scrawled in pencil on

two walls of his office at Rowan Oak, his Mississippi home. But “outline” is a misnomer. What

Faulkner actually created is a high-level plot from the temporal structure, the “timeline” of his

novel. The term outline is similarly misapplied to the notes F. Scott Fitzgerald left for the

uncompleted portion of The Last Tycoon. They are just that—notes—not a detailed plot structure

or synopsis.

Though the Howtu guides recommend them, I suspect so-called outlines don’t really exist.

Or, if they do, I doubt any general consensus exists as to their form. Is an outline form or

content? Do chapter notes fill the bill? Chapter-by-chapter synopses? Some other form of

summary akin to a movie treatment or storyboard? I’m of the opinion that notes of the Fitzgerald

sort are really what most people mean when they refer to the “outline” of a novel. Or an outline

is whatever a particular novelist thinks or says it is.

If a standard template did exist, I doubt anyone would use it—not for a first draft, anyway. I,

for one, had only a general idea where I was going when I began and for much of the journey.

Maybe, in a figurative sense, I knew I wanted to go from San Francisco to the East Coast, but I

didn’t know for a long time whether my destination was Maine, Florida, or somewhere in

between. How could I? I hadn’t written the book yet. Once I got to Salt Lake City, I still didn’t

know if I’d turn left or right at St. Louis or defer that decision until I reached Cincinnati.

I have another indispensable file called “Hooey.” It could be called “Bullshit,” but that name

is already taken by an even larger file. In the “Hooey” file, along with outlines, I place so-called

“character biographies,” as well as any chart or diagram that attempts to provide a template of

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 48

plot or character development or both. The “Hooey” file might also be called the “Syd Field”

file, after the screenplay maven (for screenwriter Wannabes) and tireless self-promoter, who

insists that the vast majority of Hollywood screenplays conform to a single structural paradigm.

Well, sure, Syd; you’ve made a fat living off the notion.

Other novelists may disagree, and I have no problem with that. It’s not that these tools don’t

work for me. I regard them as an utter waste of time, part of the “make work” that the Howtu-

write/Howtu-publish industry fobs off on literary Wannabes.

My reasons are simple and the journey analogy more than glib. It’s impossible to know the

intricacies of plot or story ahead of time, because character drives plot or action. It’s impossible

to write a meaningful character biography ahead of time, because characters don’t do what the

author thinks they should do. Characters do what they want to do. (Okay, I get it—what the

author’s unconscious tells them to do.) They resolutely refuse to conform to a predetermined or

premeditated mold and therefore render it useless. I had no idea when I planned to have an

algebra tutor for Andy that she would turn out to be as time-stopped as Miss Havisham. Miss

Beecham told me who she was.

This may sound disingenuous, but I mean it seriously, at least in regard to my own method or

process. (Hey, I’m a SERIOUS NOVELIST.) What possible good would it do me to know that

Miss Prescott, Andy’s junior high algebra teacher, graduated from Tulane or TCU in 1953? Or

that Coach Homer Dingle grew up in a small East Texas town—Lufkin or Livingston or

Nacogdoches?

What I’m not talking about here is “back story.” I’m referring to the notion that if the novelist

provides a complete set of biographical details about every character before starting a novel, he

or she has “created” those characters or knows everything about them. Back story, on the other

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 49

hand, and in relation to character development, refers to what happened to a character before any

of the action of the novel occurs. But back story doesn’t exist until the novel begins. For that

reason it is both inevitable and essential to the story; a full-blown character biography is not.

Miss Prescott’s back story is not that she graduated from Tulane or TCU in 1953. It’s not that

she’s young, attractive and sexy—those are physical details, described either directly or

indirectly. Her back story is that she’s been teaching algebra at John Bradburn Junior High in

Claiborne for several years. The end. It isn’t extensive because it doesn’t need to be. Coach

Dingle’s back story is much the same, with the important addition that he’s been both Andy’s

and Marty Lerner’s gym teacher.

The other teacher in the book, Miss Beecham, has a more extensive back story, one that

includes familiarity with several generations of Andy’s family. Its elements emerge as initial

exposition or as the novel unfolds—Andy learns, for instance, that Miss Beecham was born in

Gulf Isle—or such details may only be implied. Given the photograph of the dashing young man

in her living room, Miss Beecham was probably disappointed in love. But she is who she is

because of Gulf Isle. Miss Prescott and Coach Dingle don’t require the same specificity. The

latter could be from any small town in Texas or the South or anywhere in rural America.

Back story is organic; it adjusts a character’s “biography” not only to his or her importance or

function in the story, but also to the novelist’s creative process. The character biography is

extraneous, if not irrelevant, to that process, serving less to dress the characters in their proper

clothes than to constrain the novelist with a straitjacket. To know that Rodney Dawson had been

bullying Andy throughout ninth-grade was all I, or the reader, needed to know about Rodney. To

stipulate that the bullying began because Rodney transferred from another junior high for ninth

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 50

grade or that he comes from a broken home or that his father is a “hitter” is unnecessary

information.

Similarly, a “timeline” for the action of a novel is useful in a way that a plot outline is not. I

may not have known my exact destination when I began the novel, but I knew the length of the

journey. I knew that the action of the book would occur within a single summer. (Very briefly,

something between five hours and five days, my working title was Summer. Edith Wharton,

however, had beaten me to it.) Why did I know this? Because of the heat—and the air

conditioning. I also knew that the arc of the story—the arc of any coming-of-age tale—involved

transformation. I recalled a line from Bel Kaufmann’s Up the Down Staircase, when two high

school girls are talking about another girl on the first day of school. One says, “She changed her

name over the summer.” Of course, I realized. That’s what happens in the summers of childhood

and only in the summer. Jewish girls always had their nose jobs in summer.

I don’t intend that last remark as snottily (in any sense) or as gratuitously as it sounds. Andy

Lerner needs the equivalent of a summer nose job. That is to say, his transformation must be

both swift and startling. It must surprise in the way a heretofore plain girl turning up as a beauty

on the first day of tenth or eleventh grade is a surprise. It had, therefore, to be accomplished

more or less “out of sight.”

So my structural principle was temporal rather than spatial. I believe, in fact, that any novel

(except, perhaps, War and Peace) exists primarily in time rather than space. Were a novel set

within a single locked and windowless room, time would elapse even if the novel lasted only as

long as the air supply. Indeed, the spatial dimensions of the novel would inevitably expand

because of what was going on in the minds of the characters. Memory and imagination are

essentially temporal activities. They defy spatial barriers.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 51

Define a novel’s temporal boundaries and the story arc defines itself, because it must conform

to those boundaries. To return to the journey analogy, if the timeline runs from May 24th to

September 12th of the same year and the novelist starts from the West Coast in May, he or she

must reach the East Coast in September. It does not mean that the novel ends wherever the

novelist happens to be on September twelfth. Nor does it mean that the end date can be extended

beyond September twelfth for as long as it takes the novelist to reach the East Coast. A timeline

imposes a discipline that a plot outline lacks, even if it merely confirms what the novelist already

knows intuitively about the story he or she wants to tell. An outline is potentially open-ended and

may involve multiple plot lines. A single timeline will not only encompass, but organize and

integrate, any number of plot lines. If it doesn’t, something else is wrong.

I’m not suggesting that a timeline can supply the plot of a novel—again, it’s probably making

explicit something the novelist already knows—any more than a novelist can outline a plot if he

doesn’t have at least some idea what it is. But plots can be bare-bones simple. Put five people in

locked and windowless room and see what happens and why. It’s not much of a plot, but a plot it

is. Try constructing an outline for it. Construct a timeline, however, and things begin to happen.

Five people in a locked and windowless room for an hour or a day offers different

possibilities than if the timeline is a month or a year or eternity. That the action must rise and fall

more quickly within a shorter timeline suggests that the issues driving the action will be

different. Not food and water or sex or aging or the physical and psychological effects of

prolonged enclosure and isolation, but a more immediate dynamic among the characters—a

physical threat such as lack of oxygen, a serious injury or acute illness, murderous intent,

blackmail, vengeance. At least some of the characters probably already have to know one

another, while a longer timeline probably involves characters getting to know one another. The

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 52

shorter timeline suggests a more “realistic” treatment, an extremely long one fantasy or science

fiction or the oxymoronic (or just plain moronic) “magical realism.”

I had a plot for my novel. More specifically, I had five plot lines involving Andy.

Love (Melanie, Judy)

Education (Miss Beecham, Coach Dingle, Miss Prescott)

Revenge (Rodney Dawson, Tommy Gilley, Malcolm Bonner)

Family (Emily, Marty, Grandma Celia, Great-Grandpa Simon, Hattie Mae, Lester Todman)

Friendship (Norman, Todd, Perry, Darlene)

I was fortunate enough to think of plot from the outset in terms of character. I didn’t have to

impose characters on a plot already worked out in detail. Obviously, too, the characters cross plot

lines, as one would both expect and desire. Hattie Mae, Miss Beecham, Coach Dingle, and

Darlene become a truer family than Andy’s own, Norman and Todd become better brothers to

Andy than Marty, and Norman has an essential function in both the love and revenge plots. From

Judy, of course, Andy lerns—oops!—learns a great deal.

Once I’d defined the start and end points on my timeline, I knew a good deal more as well. I

knew that the incidents setting my plot in motion had to occur quickly, because I needed the

maximum time available to make Andy’s transformation believable. I couldn’t, for instance,

have Andy get beat up in mid-August or even early July. The incidents needed to be extreme—

not only the beating, but the humiliation at the dance, the death of a beloved grandmother, the

intrusion of Great-Grandpa Simon into Andy’s daily life, and the partial loss of Hattie Mae

because of the family’s straitened finances. I had to pile things on at the front end of all five plot

lines, and the “turning point” for Andy had to address all of them. No later than the midpoint of

my timeline (mid-July), I had to confirm the turning point by showing some meaningful,

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 53

dramatic, equally integrated progress on my plot lines—initial rather than final success. Once I’d

dramatized tangible success, specific events on the timeline determined the pace at which the

plot lines were resolved through late July and August: the end of summer school, the Labor Day

dance at Lakeview; the start of the new school year. Finally, I knew that having Grandma’s

Celia’s death occur very early in the book, I must close it with Great-Grandpa Simon’s.

A timeline, however detailed, doesn’t replace invention, any more than a character biography

creates character or a plot outline ensures an interesting, effective plot. But the timeline told me

something that those other two tools couldn’t. It told me that the structure of a novel, my novel at

any rate, was temporally determined. (As was Faulkner’s A Fable. Study his outline yourself,

and you will see that it is actually a timeline covering the seven days of the novel’s action.)

The timeline’s duration, as well as the points or milestones along it, made it possible for me to

discover the details of plot and character more readily by confirming that the story I needed to

tell depended on immersion—in a specific moment, a particular season, a unique opportunity—

rather than attenuation. It confirmed the image of the pretty young girl sitting on her front lawn.

If the timeline covered a school year rather than a summer between school years, I’d be working

with a different structure even if I created the same characters and utilized the same plot lines. It

wouldn’t be the pretty young Jewish girl sitting on her front lawn on a golden afternoon, but

some elaboration that the image didn’t allow. That was the joy and the pain of it.

In this context, Pat Conroy’s most recent novel, South of Broad (2009), provides an

interesting comparison with Not Fade Away. In chapter 18 of the former, more than halfway

through the book, narrator Leo King recounts his confrontation with a school bully on the first

day of senior year in 1969. “At Peninsula High, Wormy was the Tyrannosaurus rex of the classic

Southern redneck. He had beaten me up often and taken pleasure in doing so. Last year he had

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 54

broken my nose.” Later, during the same incident: “But that summer had done something to me.

I had grown three inches and had spent months lifting weights at the Citadel, running Ike up

stadium stairs, and working my bicycle hard on my morning paper route.”

What I find interesting is that in a novel whose timeline encompasses twenty years, Pat

Conroy packs much of the plot of my novel into a couple of paragraphs. Different timeline,

different emphases, and different elaboration of the action. Back story also figures in the

comparison. Conroy provides Wormy Ledbetter’s back story in the first sentence I quoted. He

doesn’t really need to provide the longer explanation of Wormy’s attitude and behavior that Leo

gives his mother, who happens to be the high school principal—certainly not in such detail.

Conroy may or may not get away with it, but except that the roles are reversed, it’s warmed-over

Atticus Finch lecturing Scout about young Walter Cunningham.

Like most really effective tools, starting with the wheel, the timeline is also pretty simple. For

one thing, it is essentially and necessarily fixed; it always begins where the novel begins, and its

boundaries are as immovable. A flashback, for example, that relates something that occurred

before the starting point of the timeline neither expands nor violates the timeline. My first draft

included brief scenes of Andy’s earlier experiences with Coach Dingle (1957-59), of Marty

teaching Andy to drive in the fall of 1958, and of Rodney bullying Andy during ninth grade, but

none of these tampered with the timeline of May 24th to September 12th, 1959. Why? The

explanation is as simple as the tool itself. These scenes were remembered.

E.M. Forster’s well-known comparison of Story and Plot in Aspects of the Novel (1927)

proves useful in this context. He defines Story as “And then . . .,” meaning the chronological

sequence of events in a narrative—the action, isolated from any question except “what

happens?” Plot is the arrangement and integration of the action with other novelistic elements in

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 55

response to the question “what happens and why?” Plot, therefore, relies on causality, and the

action may or may not be strictly chronological.

Now consider the two published versions of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tender Is the Night, the

flashback version and the sequential version. (I don’t recall how Malcolm Cowley referred to

them when he published the latter in 1951 or how Fitzgerald scholars have referred to them

since.) In the original, flashback version, the timeline begins after World War I, but reverts to

wartime for the novel’s middle portion. In the Cowley version, which represents Fitzgerald’s

rearrangement in response to negative criticism of the original, the timeline begins with the war.

The question is, does it matter? The answer: yes, it does.

To oversimplify a bit, one timeline provides Story, the other Plot. More accurately, perhaps,

the right timeline always provides a novelist with Plot as well as Story. I believe that Fitzgerald

was correct in saying that “the true beginning” of the book is the young Dr. Diver in Switzerland,

but mistaken in revising to a sequential timeline. The original doesn’t dispense with the war; it

introduces in its proper place within the tighter timeline. Fitzgerald achieves a tragic affect not

through the attenuated rise and fall of Dick Diver but by juxtaposing them through retrospection.

In the novel’s structure (if not the mind of Dr. Diver), the past exists as memory, after that time

has been lost—irrevocably. Marcel has his madeleine, Dick Diver his Nicole.

So what less fanciful conclusions might be drawn? Clearly, a great novelist’s initial instinct

was better than his contemporary critics understood. That being said, a timeline may provide a

plot, but it doesn’t dictate the particulars. What of the early, perhaps misguided emphasis on

Rosemary Hoyt? The revised timeline eliminates it. But how better to portray the charm and

grace of the Divers than through the eyes of an innocent American girl, new to Europe? (Daisy

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 56

Miller, anyone? Isabel Archer?) How better to comment ironically on the illusory nature of the

Divers’ “charmed” existence than by making Rosemary an ingénue in the movies?

One might more generally conclude that Plot ineluctably involves retrospection, hence

memory. For Story, which is sequential, these are all but moot. A reverse formulation might be

that once retrospection occurs in the timeline, the latter more nearly encapsulates Plot than Story.

In this sense, one form of retrospection—the flashback—exists solely to provide causality. Story,

or “pure action,” has more in common with myth than with sophisticated novelistic technique.

Narcissus, a comely youth, stops to drink from a pool of water and then pines away for love of

the beautiful image he sees in it. From this source we derive, culturally if not clinically, the term

narcissism. Expand that story slightly, however, as in Narcissus unknowingly sees his own

reflection and pines away because he is unable to grasp it . . ., and you have a plot, a causal

connection not only to Echo—the nymph whose love for him he spurned— to the meaning

implicit in the story itself. The question immediately arises as to why, having merely paused to

satisfy his thirst, Narcissus becomes entranced by his own image. And the why invites a

flashback. And Echo was a water nymph—irony, get it?

Now consider a modern story that has the simplicity of myth: the movie Groundhog Day. The

timeline runs three days: February 1st, February 2nd, February 3rd. But fully ninety percent of the

action occurs on the second day. The twist is that Day 2, Groundhog Day, is repeated . . . and

repeated . . . and repeated . . . until the Bill Murray character “gets it right.” The director, Harold

Ramis, believes it’s about ten years’ of repetition or “eternal recurrence” until the protagonist,

Phil Connors, finally transcends “the limitations of his contempt” for others. But the timeline of

the piece remains three days. Story becomes Plot only when Day 2 is repeated, and as it is further

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 57

repeated, it becomes a retrospective accumulation based on Phil Connors’ memory of the

previous instances of Day 2. Without that memory, there would be no sense of repetition.

What Aristotle saw when he examined mythic stories was a foundation of pure action, which

his Poetics celebrates, “for it is by their actions that men are happy or sad.” That is certainly true

of Oedipus Rex. Parricide and its consequences are nothing if not active. Oedipus wants to find

the source of the plague on Thebes, only to discover that he is the source. Though the “timeline”

of the play adheres to the Aristotelian unities, the working out of the action necessitates a return

to the past. Bring on Tiresias and the shepherd.

For me, prose fiction is almost by definition a retrospective art. In contrast to most movies

(and, somewhat less obviously, genre fiction), the best fiction is built on Plot rather than Story.

For that reason, though in a different sense than Forster intended it in his discussion of Arnold

Bennett’s The Old Wives’ Tale, time “is installed as the lord of creation.” That is why present

tense narrative is such a cumbersome and irritating device. That is why narrative complexity so

often involves the impact of the past upon the present. That is why a timeline is perhaps the most

useful item in the novelist’s toolbox.

Unfortunately, for all its virtues, the timeline isn’t a perfect tool. As my eight-hundred-fifty

page first draft amply demonstrated, it doesn’t control a novel’s length. Those remembered

scenes added words and pages.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 58

Chapter 6

Too Many Words, So Little Time

In my younger and more vulnerable years I thought people liked to read as much as I did.

Maybe not as compulsively and omnivorously as I, but for the same reason—for the pleasure it

afforded. Whether the pleasure was intellectual, aesthetic, emotional, or a combination of these

and other factors was not a question that occurred to me. I just assumed, without quite

articulating it, that everyone got some sort of kick out of reading, especially fiction. I go back to

the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew.

Then, as a teenager, over the course of a few weeks, I saw my cousin (the same cousin whose

wedding I later attended) attempt to read a James Bond novel. It wasn’t easy to watch another

human being suffer at close range. I thought the effort might kill him. It didn’t, but he’s never

been the same. Nor, I suspect, has he ever read another book.

My cousin wanted to read the Bond books because he liked the movies with Sean Connery.

But for him the struggle wasn’t worth it. People want to be told stories, but they don’t

necessarily want to read them. This is a failure not of intelligence, or not necessarily so, but of

imagination. A novel is the product not only of the novelist’s imagination, but of the reader’s as

well. Movies, on the other hand, supply most of the “imaginative” elements without requiring

much of anything in that line from the viewer. As a bonus, they supply movie stars (or, these

days, Matthew McConnaghey) in lieu of character development.

Are the readers of novels therefore more imaginative than moviegoers? They are while they’re

reading, because they must be. Novelists, if they want to be published, must write not only to

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 59

“express themselves” or to “create beauty,” but to connect with an audience. After all, they’re

not poets. The bad news is that a novel, even a published one, doesn’t exist if no one reads it.

The good news: it only takes one reader. Publishers, of course, not to mention literary agents,

booksellers, and the novelist himself or herself, prefer more.

One thing I’ve learned, however, is that the potential audience for most novels is small. Very

small. Smaller by far than that for non-fiction, even the confessional memoirs that resemble

fiction, which are in turn a long way sales-wise from diet and self-help books. This shrinking

readership applies even to the most successful commercial fiction.

The popularity gap between prose fiction and movies is even wider. The readers of a

publishing phenomenon like The Da Vinci Code are vastly outnumbered by those who’ve seen

the film version. Though millions of children and adults have read the Harry Potter books,

millions more see the movies. The movie audience only began with those readers. For the world

at large, the book is what they’re stuck with until the movie comes out.

The problem with the first draft of Not Fade Away, apart from its length, was that I wrote it

for the smallest possible audience. I wrote it for myself. I wasn’t, however, unique in doing so.

The first draft of any novel is written for the author.

I’m speaking of a complete, coherent draft, not the initial spew just to get words on paper.

With a first novel, the initial draft reflects the author’s vision unimpeded and unimpaired by the

needs and realities of the marketplace. It is at once the purest and the coarsest expression of the

novelist’s need to write the novel.

This phenomenon is an elaboration of the autobiographical element and illustrates again the

need for narrative distance. In the earliest stage of writing, the author is not only failing to

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 60

achieve any distance from personal experience, but also from any potential audience. The author

is confusing him- or herself with them, his or her perspective on the material with theirs. I would

want to read this book, so everyone else will too.

No, not everyone. Not even most readers. Not even most readers of fiction. In fact, hardly

anyone. You would want to read this version of this book because YOU wrote it.

The first draft of my first novel wasn’t much too long only because I had things to learn about

selection, pacing, and “overwriting.” (For many readers, over-writing is like art and

pornography; they can’t define it, but they know it when they see it.) It wasn’t too long because

I’d failed to separate myself sufficiently from event-driven autobiography. It was too long

because I was sating my own imagination at the expense of the reader’s. In a novel of memory, I

was remembering everything—not savoring the madeleine, but gorging on a whole layer cake.

Selection, pacing, and the avoidance of overwriting adjust the novelist’s need to write the novel

to the reader’s need to participate in the imaginative world of that novel. Length ceases to be a

problem. The reader will put up with any length if you engage his or her imagination.

First drafts don’t make the necessary adjustment—almost by definition. I understand

veneration of the published version of On the Road; the novel has a serious claim to continuing

attention. But to regard the “scroll” version of the novel, that single roll of paper spooling into

the typewriter without paragraphs or chapter breaks, as anything other than a curiosity strikes me

as nonsense. In fact, until the scroll version was actually published, it had for me the status of a

literary urban legend. Come on, I’d think—hit the road, Jack!

* * *

Eight-hundred-fifty-three typewritten, double-spaced pages are about two hundred twenty

thousand words. That isn’t War and Peace or even Gone with the Wind, but it’s a lot of words.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 61

Bleak House or Our Mutual Friend, Vanity Fair or Middlemarch or Ulysses. I had taken my time

to tell my tale of a single summer, as had Joyce to tell his tale of a single summer day.

Unfortunately, all comparisons ended there.

That I knew what I was doing in that first draft proved to be my undoing. I practiced the

immersion I have mentioned. The lush descriptions matched the lushness of the landscape I was

describing. The leisurely pacing matched the languor of the summer days and nights over which

the action unfolded; the set-piece scenes extended by dialogue reflected the southern fondness

for talk—a conversational style rooted in story-telling.

Chapter 1, for example, the night Grandma Celia comes to dinner for the last time, initially

spanned the first three chapters. The first chapter included, besides the opening meditation on the

heat I’ve already mentioned, a description of Lawton Heights. In addition to more extended

versions of the dinner table scene and the time in the living room before dinner, those chapters

provided a scene going back several years to describe how Marty used to scare Andy in his

darkened bedroom late at night, as well as several detailed references to Marty’s teen-age

peccadilloes. These flashbacks established the tension between Andy’s envy of Marty and his

skepticism about the value of his brother’s behavior. With the flashbacks, the opening evening

occupied twenty-six typed pages.

This opening established the dominant narrative mode. Chapter 2, the first dance at Lakeview

Country Club, when Andy ends up without a partner for the last dance, was originally embedded

between the two parts of the chapter following Grandma Celia’s funeral (before and after Judy

appears). That first Lakeview chapter occurred not next in time after chapter 1, but as a

memory/flashback, with only an earlier hint of the disaster in the original version of chapter 3

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 62

(chapter 4 as it was then). I repeated this technique throughout the original draft, both within and

between chapters.

With these nested flashbacks the structure of the book mirrored the theme of memory and

emphasized its importance. This structure became an indication of how Andy viewed his world

and related to it. The arc of the story could express Andy’s growing awareness of the past and its

power. The full significance of an event often lay not in its occurrence, but in the recollection of

it in juxtaposition to a “current” event.

The same strategy applied to the physical world and descriptions of it. The unstable weather

in a (deleted) chapter following Grandma Celia’s funeral took Andy back to an earlier stormy

night when he was staying at her house, during which she recounted her experience in the Big

Hurricane of 1900 in Gulf Isle. Thus, at all points in the narrative and in the narrative technique,

the past impinged upon the present. In a novel with more than a few characters dead or dying and

relegated to the past, the past was alive.

Pretty impressive, no? I liked it. My wife liked it. But then, my wife and I are one, so I still

hadn’t expanded my readership.

The downside was the emphasis on memory, which is at once digressive and a filtering device.

As Lenore Raven and Rick Usher pointed out, retrospection tends to distance the reader from the

action. Moreover, my own particular technique curdled the action by matching its pace to the

slow pace and languid heat of the southeast Texas summer.

To speak of this technique as a failing is not a value judgment, but a practical reflection of the

literary marketplace and of a movie-made, sound bite-ridden culture. The novelist has to grab

each reader by the balls or the—whatever—and pull that reader into the story. Not only that,

though the reader may love novels, he or she is a fickle and potentially promiscuous lover.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 63

Seduction isn’t enough, nor is a quick bang, no matter how satisfying; the novelist has to give

that lover a reason to stay. According to the conventional wisdom, each chapter must provide the

equivalent of mind-blowing sex.

I wasn’t doing well at that. Or, rather, I was too eager to please. I’m going to switch

metaphors here, before gender equal time becomes a serious issue or impediment to saying what

I mean. So let’s say that I saw as much pleasure in the journey as in reaching the destination

prematurely and without sufficient anticipation.

To that end I provided numerous diversions and side trips, sometimes doubling back to points

of interest previously missed—never suspecting that the reader might use these occasions as an

opportunity for abandoning the journey. The narrative was not only determinedly retrospective,

but relentlessly allusive. Obviously, any reader willing to give a novel called Not Fade Away a

shot, probably takes up the book with some inkling of what lies ahead in this regard—at least in

terms of music. But music was for me only one of many allusive elements, along with literature,

history, movies, and television.

Consider two passages from the first draft, since deleted. The first is from the sequence

dealing with Andy and his friends going over to Todd Berman’s house every night during Todd’s

convalescence from appendicitis. Lester Todman, Emily Lerner’s latest boyfriend, insists on

driving Andy to Todd’s one night.

And, if not exactly a gab fest, it was a memorable enough ride. As I'd recently eliminated

Mabel Beecham from the role of Mr. Murdstone, Lester might well have presented himself as

an appropriate choice in a much more literal sense, and I might have regarded this as our

Brooks of Sheffield episode. Not that he looked at all like Basil Rathbone. In those years, as

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 64

I've already suggested, he was too much a dead ringer for one of your gray flannel suit,

executive suite, power-and-the-prize types ever to be mistaken for anything else. But in

blandly brooking no protest from that “young lady” my mother, he had settled the affair of

the air conditioner in just the sort of firm, masterful way that might in less favorable

circumstances become recognizably Murdstonish; more to the point, so far from having to

recollect who I was each time we met, he now seemed determined to cultivate me, but with a

certain sly wariness, as of something held back. Nevertheless, if any such comparison ever

occurred to me, I failed to pursue it very far—not least, I'd have to add, because I was the one

who knew about Brooks of Sheffield.

In addition to which, Mr. Murdstone knew where he was going. Lester, on the other hand,

having asked for and nodded attentively to detailed directions, proceeded to ignore them just

as diligently. Either that or the Chrysler had a mind of its own, like Nellybelle the jeep,

however few and slight the other resemblances between the two vehicles. It took, in fact,

much less imagination to see Lester as a spiffy, buttoned-down version of Pat Brady than as a

Victorian stepfather. Then again, maybe Lester’s car had an automatic pilot and he had

simply filed an incorrect flight plan. Taking in the Imperial's luminescent instrument panel,

an array of dials and switches and levers worthy of a Boeing 707, and a radio that would

probably have picked up Alan Freed in Cleveland, I thought it a distinct possibility.

In order of occurrence here are the allusions:

Mr. Murdstone – a major character in David Copperfield.

Brooks of Sheffield – Mr. Murdstone’s way of alluding to David, so that he may talk

about his own designs on David’s mother to a friend when David is present.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 65

“As I’d recently eliminated Mabel Beecham” – refers to an earlier allusion to David

Copperfield, when Mr. Murdstone attempts to “tutor” David in sums.

Basil Rathbone – played Mr. Murdstone in 1935 movie version of the novel.

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, Executive Suite, The Power and the Prize – all novels

and/or films of the 1950s, iconic boardroom dramas of the era.

Nellybelle – the all-but-human jeep in the Roy Rogers TV show of the 1950s.

Pat Brady – Roy’s comic sidekick in the TV show.

Alan Freed – archetypal rock-and-roll disc jockey based in Cleveland.

Some elements of the second passage, which occurred at the gathering following Grandma

Celia’s funeral, made it to the final version. In this passage, note the use of the present tense to

heighten the “immediacy” of Andy’s disconnection before Judy arrives.

I see Mother talking earnestly now to Lionel Kahn, of Leopold, Loeb, Tregoff & Kahn,

the law firm where she works. He is the thirty-third degree Mason and the same Lionel Kahn

who will go on to become a Watergate Special Prosecutor. Marty is over being charming to

Great-Aunt Esther, probably because when he made a point of speaking to her at my bar

mitzvah reception, she sent him a check for ten bucks. Odette Levy, who lost a brother in

World War Two and a son in Korea, is chatting quietly with Alicia Cohen, who would lose a

grandson to the Armies of the Night. Nearby, Cyril Cohen and Bernard Weinberg are

speculating about when, if ever, Claiborne will get a Major League baseball franchise and

about the feasibility of an indoor stadium. (Bernard's daughter Allison has been Melanie

Epstein's best friend since third grade and is said to have French-kissed at age twelve with

Todd Berman while everyone else was doing the "Hokey-Pokey" at Speedway Sam's Roller

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 66

Rink; in ten years she would be Allison Wonderland, living from crash pad to crash pad in

Haight-Ashbury, and in twenty Allison Hoffman, a media consultant in New York.) I hear

Lester telling Cornel Greenberg the bank president that Catholicism is an albatross around

Kennedy's neck, a monkey on his back, and a sword of Damocles over his head and that he

can never get the nomination, much less be elected. Symington all the way, says Lester the

Missourian, citing the recent declaration from Independence.

I still regard these passages as effective stylistic displays, though they succeed in different

ways. In the second excerpt, the allusiveness is political-historical or in service to it (the mythic

sword of Damocles, the literary “albatross,” and Norman Mailer’s The Armies of the Night) and

frames current history not in terms of the past, but the future, in support of the retrospective

mode. It also juxtaposes personal or family history with public history. I want to put the name of

Lionel Kahn’s law firm on hold for a moment.

The first is a more subtle and sophisticated passage; the pun on Brooks of Sheffield in the

phrase “blandly brooking no protest” legitimizes the Murdstone comparison while recognizing

its limitations in terms of Lester’s character. The passage evinces my increasing confidence as

that first draft proceeded.

Ah, but the questions raised, the problems presented, by those same passages. The least,

though most obvious of these is, what is it reasonable to expect the reader to know?

And what kind of reader? Some allusiveness is just a matter of what’s out there in the cultural

ether. This applies to more than just the contemporary. It’s not unreasonable to assume that most

readers have at least heard of David Copperfield (the novel as well as the magician), even if

Andy’s references to the novel in earlier chapters didn’t anticipate this passage. Same for Mr.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 67

Murdstone. Brooks of Sheffield, however, approaches the arcane, as does Basil Rathbone for

anyone under fifty years old. Turner Classic Movies makes the three fifties movie allusions

somewhat more viable, but a reader probably has to have lived during that decade to recognize

Nellybelle and Pat Brady. The same applies to Alan Freed. (The references to a Chrysler

Imperial and a Boeing 707 jetliner are not allusions, but period details.)

Lack of recognition as a generational factor may also apply to the Armies of the Night

reference in the second passage. Be that as it may, few readers, even those alive at the time, are

likely to recall that Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri challenged Kennedy for the 1960

Democratic nomination. And another pun, “the declaration from Independence,” demands not

only that the reader know Harry Truman was from Independence, Missouri (to which he had

retired after his presidency), but that he had recently come out publicly in support of Symington

for the nomination.

I was working at cross-purposes. On the one hand, I wasn’t allowing the reader sufficient

freedom to fill in the contours of my fictional world. I didn’t recognize that details are important

as much for what they suggest as what they openly reveal. On the other, when I used allusiveness

to invite the reader’s participation, I risked pissing him or her off if the reference wasn’t only

allusive, but elusive. No reader appreciates not “getting it.” Readers might recognize Leopold

and Loeb from one of the twentieth century’s most famous murder trials, but who recalls the

Carole Tregoff-Bernard Finch murder case of the nineteen-fifties.

A truism, if not a cliché, of authorship is, “write what you know.” One essential thing to know

is the potential reader. In short, of whom was the readership of Not Fade Away likely to consist?

Who was my “audience?”

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 68

If I had the right readers, most of these issues wouldn’t matter. Even the length might not

matter. So I made what I suspect is a common mistake. I identified my audience in terms of the

product rather than the potential consumer. I compounded my mistake by using the Ukrainian

phrase for the product I’d created: literary fiction.

Now, there is nothing wrong with a first novel of that nature by an unknown writer except

that no effective literary agent, and therefore no commercial publisher, will touch it.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 69

Chapter 7

Taxonomy

It might be a good idea to define the term. In English rather than Ukrainian.

Again I’ll begin with a negative proposition. Literary fiction isn’t a genre. Detective stories

are, as are spy thrillers, romance and western novels, fantasy and horror tales, science fiction,

and “chick lit.” Genres are defined by their conventions and their target or core audience. Genre

fiction is a ritual of expectations based on familiarity, so much so that genres beget sub-genres.

Police procedurals operate differently than the lone gumshoe branch of detective fiction,

beginning with point of view. The former are so often third-person narratives, and the latter first-

person, that the pattern seems invariable. Genre fiction emphasizes what happens; mystery

solved, murderer identified, vampire dispatched by a stake through the heart, Death Star

destroyed, mole in the CIA exposed (remember, this is fiction).

Like genre fiction, literary fiction describes the what, but even more it involves the how and

why. Making use of its own conventions, often testing or adding to them, it doesn’t so much defy

genre conventions as ignore them (or, occasionally, debunk them). Character, style, and theme

assume the same importance as plot or take precedence over it. Primacy goes not to reader

expectations, but to authorial imperative, creating a tension that determines the relationship

between author and reader. Literary fiction may require more work on the part of the author—

because it lacks the element of formula and predictability and the conventions these engender.

As James Wood points out in his small gem of a book, How Fiction Works (2008), serious

fiction makes use of different “registers,” which he defines as “a kind of diction, which is

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 70

nothing more than a distinctive way of saying something.” Literary fiction is all about saying

something distinctively; genre fiction is all about saying the same thing in the same way over and

over and over again. That is the definition both of its success and of reader expectations, they

being one and the same. The name of the game is predictability. Whatever the distinctiveness of

literary fiction requires of the author in the way of stylistic and thematic complexity, that

distinctiveness inevitably requires more effort from the reader than does genre fiction.

Therein lies the rub. As a reflection of the marketplace, literary and otherwise, not to mention

human nature, the problem is simply stated. Most people expect to be paid for work; they don’t

expect to pay—in this case, to buy a book—and then do the work.

This fact seems to contradict a couple of my earlier arguments. Why allow room for the

reader’s imagination to work if the reader doesn’t want to work? Lenore’s Law regarding reader

intelligence must have a corollary, or perhaps can be more accurately stated: All readers are

lazy. They’re not more imaginative than moviegoers, but equally unimaginative. Literary fiction

is to commercial fiction as independent film (formerly “art-house,” which was a more telling

phrase) is to mainstream movies. At best, to reiterate another point, the market is small. Very

small. Very, very small.

So the question for me became, was the market large enough to justify publication of a first

novel that because of its length and its technique was clearly literary fiction? The answer, should

anyone be in any doubt, was a resounding no. As in, not a prayer. As in, don’t make me laugh.

Not that the prospect was entirely bleak. A coming-of-age novel may or may not be literary

fiction. If coming-of-age is a genre, and it is, its conventions neither prescribe nor inhibit a

serious approach. Sometimes coming-of-age is simply a matter of getting laid. It doesn’t have to

be about love and death and time and memory. That it doesn’t clarifies the true distinction, which

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 71

is not between literary fiction and genre fiction as writing, but literary fiction and genre as

marketable product. (See chapter 21 for more discussion of the problems these distinctions raise

for the serious first novelist.) As product, genre fiction is commercial fiction is popular fiction.

Popular because people buy it—enough of them that those who write it sometimes make money.

It bothers readers, of course, when a genre tale doesn’t do what they expect. A coming-of-age

tale whose protagonist becomes a serial killer is probably pushing the envelope a bit too much. It

violates not only “the formula,” but the essential, celebratory nature of the genre. Suppose,

however, that the protagonist is a transsexual? Sometimes coming-of-age is simply a matter of

getting laid. But as which sex? Or as both?

I’m getting way ahead of the thought process I actually went through once I realized I wasn’t

going to get anywhere with the draft I had. I didn’t connect the dots nearly as fast as this

reporting suggests. Time had passed, a couple of years. I had started the second Andy Lerner

novel while still trying to shop Not Fade Away to literary agents.

I had a minor epiphany on a flight back to San Francisco from Denver, where I’d attended a

conference of the Rocky Mountain Fiction Writers. I hadn’t managed a significant moment with

the author of Death by Beef Bourguignon; instead, I’d had one of those agonizing ten-minute

sessions when the novelist gets to pitch his or her book to a literary agent, in this case a woman

from Fort Worth. My big chance! Texas, get it?

“How long is it?” asked the agent. Shelia Rosenthal by name. Jewish, get it?

“A little under two hundred thousand words.” Meaning a little over that.

“Needs to be half that. Or less,” she said. And passed.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 72

Bam! I got it. In my defense, let me say that I’d corresponded with a number of agents by

then and even sent sample chapters, but no one had ever asked me how long the book was. Nor

had I volunteered that information. I was stupid, but not that stupid.

After Denver, I thought the book could be made saleable simply by reducing its length. As

much rewriting and polishing as I’d done, I’d never attempted significantly to shorten it. I

thought that was someone else’s job—the mythical editor at the mythical publishing house. A

Max Perkins at Scribner’s sort of thing, editing Thomas Wolfe.

How to shorten an overlong novel? Simple. Reduce the number of words and pages.

Uh, not exactly.

A novel, even a first draft, has not only length but structure—exposition, rising action,

climax, denouement. It is a living organism, however misshapen. Remove muscle or bone or

sinew, and you maim it; injure the spine severely or slice a vital nerve, and you cripple it; rupture

a major organ, and you kill it.

This analogy lacks only one essential ingredient. You guessed it. FAT! Not Fade Away

wasn’t too long; it was overweight. Lose the fat and you don’t damage the major systems and

vital organs; you improve the way they function. Now that was an epiphany.

Overweight was but another way of saying overwritten. Overwriting was like eating all day

long. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner lose their meaning, their value as nutrition and the pleasure of

anticipation. And when does one exercise? Stop gorging and start exercising, and the calories

consumed at mealtimes fulfill their essential function. That precept, applied to revising the draft

of a novel, meant cutting within scenes, paragraphs, and lines of dialogue. The result? A lean,

mean literary machine, its structure readily apparent in its slim, symmetrical contours, all parts

working smoothly and in harmony.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 73

Theoretically. The problem with this process, as with most diets, is that it’s effective, but only

up to a point. A relatively painless process, it reduces the worst of the excess—the bloat, as it

were—but not much more. When I’d completed this revision, I had a second draft, but not a

substantially shorter one—seven hundred pages. Or so.

This type of revision is calorie-counting only, which aims at weight loss rather than

redistributing the weight or replacing fat with muscle. It doesn’t measure calories against other

significant factors—metabolism, body type, hereditary, exercise. Some people diet assiduously

and don’t lose weight. The organism is what it is: literary fiction.

I hadn’t wasted my time producing that second draft; I just hadn’t solved the problem. More

seriously, perhaps, I hadn’t gone all that far in the direction of solving it.

When I had no more luck shopping the second draft than the first, I concluded that the novel

was still too long not because of overwriting, but because it was literary fiction. I was a

SERIOUS NOVELIST, and literary fiction was what SNs wrote. That I couldn’t market my

novel might have nothing to do with the quality of the work, but rather with my ineptitude in

marketing it or even with the marketplace itself. I’d come to understand, however, that whatever

else might be impeding a “read” for the book, the number of words and pages would sooner or

later trump everything. This reality was brought home to me when, on the basis of three sample

chapters, an agent in Oxford, Mississippi, requested the entire second draft in hardcopy. The

manuscript was returned unread.

The lesson I still had to learn, the truth that remained just a spot on my internal radar

intermittently blipping LENGTH! LENGTH! LENGTH! was that the writing of a novel is

inseparable from the marketing of it. The trap, however, no less dangerous than the notion that a

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 74

novel must inevitably find a publisher simply because it is well-written, is in coming to believe

that the marketing of it is everything. Ars Gratia Artis may mean no more in publishing than it

does on the M-G-M logo, but it’s a mistake to dismiss that ideal altogether. Otherwise, the term

literary fiction wouldn’t exist, even in Ukrainian.

Here are some additional, possibly inflammatory thoughts on the taxonomy of literary and

genre fiction. GENRE NOVELISTS: DO NOT READ THE REST OF THIS CHAPTER!

The genre novelist begins not with life or experience, but with a genre and its conventions. He

or she is attuned not to the muse, but to the siren song of commercial success. Writing is a

business venture, focused less on the intrinsic quality of the product than on that product’s

success in the marketplace. I doubt anyone has a vocation or calling or intense creative urge—as

opposed, perhaps, to a knack or facility—to write detective novels or spy thrillers, still less

vampire fiction or lesbian erotica or lesbian vampire erotica. These people want to make a buck.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The genre novelist may have great personal and

professional integrity and, in addition to the ease or facility I mentioned, a highly developed

sense of craftsmanship. That novelist may have a fertile imagination and a gift for storytelling.

These are not, however, the primary trigger to creative effort. Nor is there an autobiographical

trigger beyond, perhaps, the author’s fantasy life. (See Daniel Silva’s spy series featuring Gabriel

Allon, who wears an “SJ” on his chest which stands for SuperJew. He inherited his superhero

outfit from Ari ben Canaan of Exodus.) The genre novelist works not with his own vision but a

telescope that keeps the end result perpetually fixed in view. You don’t often hear the question,

is it possible to write SERIOUS genre fiction? You don’t hear it because the answer is obvious,

particularly as successful genre novelists are generally required to produce a book a year.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 75

Indeed, Silva, who publishes at least a book per year, provides a useful illustration of my

point. In his latest Gabriel Allon book, The Rembrandt Affair, the plot turns on Nazi theft of

wealth from Holocaust victims, specifically Dutch Jewish victims. A list of these includes one

“Sara da Silva Rossa, born Amsterdam, 8 April 1930, murdered at Auschwitz, 15 October 1942”

[Silva’s italics]. So one can’t help but wonder if Daniel Silva’s frequent use of Nazi war crimes

in the Allon series has at least something to do with a Silva/da Silva Rossa family connection.

But this “seriousness” is impossible to reconcile with the conventions and language of genre

fiction. Later in the same book Silva references a chalkboard that contains “eleven names of

eleven former KGB agents, all of whom had been killed by Gabriel and Mikhail. Now Gabriel

wiped the names from the board with the same ease he had wiped the Russians from the face of

the earth.” ‘Nuff said, at least for me.

There is, however, another question. Is it possible to work genre elements into serious fiction

without adulterating its seriousness (that is to say, dumbing it down)? The answer is a qualified

yes. Charles Dickens—definitely. Wilkie Collins somewhat less so. Pat Conroy and John Irving

—less so still. Apart from any question of how well it’s done, the unknown serious novelist who

tries to disguise his work as commercial fiction does so not to make millions, but to attract agents

and publishers.

Am I suggesting that all genre fiction is crap? Do I think that successful genre writers are not

skilled workmen—uh, workpersons—practicing a craft, but are instead talented purveyors of

dreck? Well, no, of course not. (I don’t say that in chapter 16 either, where I discuss literary crap

at some length.) Dan Brown writes crap, but the late Robert Parker didn’t. Nor does Ruth

Rendell or P.D. James, Henning Mankell or Karyn Fossum. I’m not suggesting that genre

writers, by definition, have no talent; what I am saying is that, for better or worse, they have no

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 76

genuine, galvanizing artistic calling or curiosity or sensibility in regard to their own work. Which

is fine. Especially for them. If they did, they wouldn’t be genre writers. By definition. The most

common blurb for genre writers like James and Rendell and Mankell who sometimes stretch

conventions or work outside the genre box is that their work “transcends” narrow genre

classification, approaching or becoming “literature.”

A difference therefore exists between Parker on the one hand and Rendell and James on the

other. If each of the Spenser novels is exactly the same, it’s not because a novelist as talented as

Parker lacked the ability to make them different or that he wasn’t a hardworking, discriminate

craftsman. But, like every successful genre novelist, he played to his success and to the

expectations of his readers. Like any successful businessman, he delivered a popular product—

well-made, reliable, and undemanding (even his literary allusiveness being right off the standard

Eng. Lit. syllabus—Frost, Yeats, Browning, T.S. Eliot). To attempt to apply the discriminations

of art rather than the standards of craftsmanship to Parker’s work is to risk discovering that, for

thirty years, produced his annual Spenser (and even Young Spenser for back story) simply

because he could write it to template and that the series might have been far better had it been far

shorter. Spenser and Susan Silverman do not age, but the same can’t be said of the mandatory

banter between them. There are themes in the Spenser novels, but they are undercut by all too

predictable routines. Their style became increasingly, even elegantly spare, but it is in service to

these routines. It sets them up and therefore renders them well-crafted shtick. Because time

doesn’t pass, the characters don’t change or grow.

That there is nothing obviously cynical or dishonest about Parker’s work (other than the

layout and padding of the physical product, for which, I suppose, we can blame Putnam)

suggests that these “routines” suited Parker’s own needs or personal history. Even a superficial

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 77

glimpse at his biography will suggest the reason for the centrality of the Spenser-Susan

relationship or the presence of strong, positive gay characters. But that doesn’t mean that the

literary potential of the work wasn’t severely compromised by commercial considerations and an

established, expectant readership. This is but another way of saying that success breeds repetition

of a dangerous kind. We see the same characters and situations in Parker’s other detective series

featuring Sunny Randall and Jesse Stone and even in his western series centered on Virgil Cole

and Everett Hitch. Only now they are dangerously close to being stock characters and situations.

Rendell and P.D. James differ from Parker in that their detective fiction is often said to

“transcend” genre or to “cross-over” into general or mainstream fiction, though these categories

defy exact definition. (Whatever such books cross-over into, it is not the same thing as injecting

genre elements into otherwise serious fiction.) One thing missing in Parker’s series that both

Rendell and James create is a sense of time passing. The policeman heroes, Wexford and

Dalghiesh, age and change as the series proceed, and the times in which they live change as well.

There is an affective and reflexive relationship between this growth and change. In contrast, the

latest Gabriel Allon novel is set in 2009, and Gabriel is still active and energetic if gray at the

temples, and still enormously attractive to young and beautiful women. But he was recruited by

Israeli intelligence in 1972 to avenge the Munich massacre. So you do the math. The prize in this

regard must, however, go to Spenser, who in the early books is a Korean War vet. Good grief,

even the Vietnam vet P.I.s and caper artists are starting to age.

To say the least, then, The sense of time passing and of retrospection is not a consistent

feature of genre fiction. One of the things that inhibits artistic seriousness in genre fiction is that,

more or less by definition, any sense of life lived in time is static. Generally speaking, genre

fiction takes place in a perpetual present. A great many such novels specify mm/dd/yyyy, some

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 78

even hh/mm/ss; however, given the conventions and repetitiveness of genre fiction, such

specificity has the effect of emphasizing an immediacy that inhibits retrospection. In a timeless

now, memory has no meaning. Even in the genre of historical mystery, time is suspended in the

particular period that the historical series inhabits—the Great War and its aftermath in the

detective series of Jacqueline Winspear and Charles Todd, the years prior to and during World

War Two in the work of Alan Furst and James Benn.

The problem isn’t that the author fails to provide historical details or to render thoroughly a

period setting. These are provided with an amplitude and exactitude that are often impressive and

occasionally excruciating, but they contextualize plot and character rather than reacting

dynamically with them. As Jane Smiley notes in 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel, discussing

history as a feature of fiction, “essential to history is the idea that time has passed [my emphasis]

and that the past is different from the present.” One is also reminded of Virginia Woolf’s critique

of the Edwardian novelists in “Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown:” “They have given us a house in

the hope that we may be able to deduce the human beings who live there.” In genre fiction,

though there are exceptions (see chapter 13), history becomes simply another convention that

teeters on the brink of cliché—the carnage of the Western Front, the shell-shocked young soldier,

or the trains of cattle cars moving rounded up Jews ever eastward toward the gateway marked

“Arbeit macht frei.”

In contrast to the manufacture of genre fiction, the writing of literary fiction is a profoundly

solitary, introspective, and self-centered effort. It has everything to do with what made the

novelist undertake the effort in the first place rather than take the LSAT or enroll in business

school. That catalyst—call it vocation, inspiration, compulsion, or some more exotic neurosis—

inevitably takes precedence over the commercial possibilities of the end result. In my case, as

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 79

I’ve insisted, I had no choice but to write about southeast Texas and Jewish characters.

Otherwise, I wasn’t going to be a productive writer. Whatever the autobiographical trigger that

propelled me as novelist, it involved a certain place and time and a particular set of people.

(Okay, some people never get over high school; others never get over family. Often, they’re the

same people, and many of them become either artists or criminals.) It may not always be so, but I

have to mine that vein for all its worth—artistically, if not financially—before moving on. And I

believe that all serious novelists begin with time and memory and history, personal or otherwise.

One’s calling as a serious novelist, one’s choice of subject (let’s pretend for a moment that it

is a choice) may make for a lonely professional existence and a self-righteous frame of mind, at

once defiant and defensive. All such novelists, struggling for credibility, viability, and a reason

to go on in the face of near universal indifference (in the dark night of the soul, we are all

Vincent van Gogh) undoubtedly enter a phase where they say fuck you to everyone. Some never

leave this phase. The process of making their fiction marketable without allowing it to all but

unrecognizable to themselves depends in no small way on learning who to say fuck you to.

Traditionally, the literary agency and the publisher help to educate and to integrate the lone

wolf SN in the social and promotional realities of the literary world. It is easy enough—though

hardly a slam dunk—to accept the realities and climb aboard the promotional circuit after

success is achieved, success being defined at a minimum as reasonably enthusiastic agent

representation, commercial publication, and a few good reviews generating at least modest sales.

It is quite another to master the realities and to manufacture success alone or from whole cloth.

So while self-publication may remove the most painful sting of all—that of not being published

—the chasm between self-publication and traditional publication is all but synonymous with the

gap between serious and commercial fiction, literary and genre fiction. The stories I’ve heard of

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 80

“cross-over” from self-publication to traditional publication (Vince Flynn, for example)

invariably involve genre fiction. Any crossover, however, depends on a literary agent, and so the

familiar catch-22 reasserts itself in only slightly disguised form: no self-published writer of

literary fiction can crossover without an agent; no agent will be interested (for very long, if at all)

in representing a self-published serious novelist. Too much risk, too little upside. Unless, of

course, the novel is already successful. And what are the chances of that? See the last two

chapters of this book for a full description of the pitfalls involved in that endeavor.

Bottom line: the genre novelist craves fame (and, of course, money) to validate his or her

work, the serious novelist a reputation. As a result, frequently enough to justify the

generalization, the genre novelist is granted a well-situated stall in the marketplace; the serious

novelist—if he or she is very good and very lucky—gets to be a writer-in-residence.

Though they may seem unnecessarily rigid and arbitrary, these distinctions are important,

indeed essential. So far from originating in literary snobbery or elitism, they derive from the

rigidities of the defined marketplace.

DISCLAIMER TO GENRE NOVELISTS WHO READ THIS SECTION ANYWAY: JUST

KIDDING, GUYS!

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 81

Chapter 8

Glimmerings

Here is where things stood, about the time of the millennium. A couple of years had passed

since I’d completed the second draft, years occupied on the marketing side by query letters,

sample chapters, literary competitions, and writers’ conferences. Like Hattie Mae, I knew what I

knew. Unlike her, I didn’t know enough.

What knowledge I did possess, I hadn’t achieved entirely on my own. I’d gleaned occasional

bits of useful information such as the guidance on length from Sheila Rosenthal and the negative

reinforcement of same from the agent in Mississippi. I’d received some highly positive feedback

on the original opening chapter and the descriptive power of its prose from a reader in a fiction

contest I’d entered, only to be told that I hadn’t made the short list in the literary fiction category

because my synopsis of the rest of the novel was “weak.” (This is the sort of thing that will drive

you up, and over, the wall.) I knew that I was supposed to take writing classes, join a reading

group, network on the Internet, sell everything and move to New York.

One agent was impressed enough by the first three chapters to request the entire novel on

diskette. She responded that she loved the writing, but read less than half of the book. She felt

that the story began to “bog down” at about chapter fourteen (the deleted chapter dealing with

the threatening weather following Grandma Celia’s funeral and the flashback to the Big

Hurricane). She also felt that the novel showed great promise, recommended that I hire a

professional editor, and offered to refer me to one.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 82

As my friend and former English teacher, John Nicholson, pointed out, this was professional

“validation” such as I’d never received before—and at the height of the era for me when, in a

guide to literary agents, an agent in New York listed but one criterion for query letters addressed

to him: “Don’t tell me your wife likes it.”

An interesting comment, notable for both its cold, hard realism and its savage contempt. The

fact is my wife did like it—a lot. She had indeed been more than supportive, such support being

generally assumed to be blind (at least by literary agents with a pathological hatred of both

writers and women). She had been an enthusiastic sounding board on virtually all aspects of the

novel—reading, correcting, questioning, and advising. Together, we thrashed over the back story

of Emily’s marriage and infidelity, the bond between Hattie Mae and Great-Grandpa Simon, and

what ultimately proved to be the many, many versions of chapter one. But John Nicholson was

right. I had finally received some professional validation.

That was how I connected with Lenore Raven. But instead of marking the end of the process,

the beginning of the end, or at least the end of the beginning, it marked only the beginning of

everything. The real beginning. For a price, Ugarti—a price.

No less certainly, though, it marked the end of something.

The end of the Max Perkins/Scribner’s editing pipedream—the fantasy of, Mr. Gordon, we

love your book and want you to work with one of our senior editors to cut it to publishable

length. (Advance appreciated, but not required.)

The end of not paying, in the monetary sense, to have my book published.

The end of thinking that talent will out regardless of the obstacles.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 83

The end of thinking that writing didn’t include extensive rewriting as well as cutting. And

rewriting. And rewriting. . . . Then more rewriting.

I’ve said I didn’t know enough. Actually, I knew quite a lot, but I didn’t know that I knew it.

I’ll have more to say about the editing process—what it involves not only in literary, but in

financial terms. Never, ever forget that professional editing is a business, and no matter what

anyone tells you, people go into business for only one reason.

The editing process didn’t alert me to problems of which I wasn’t already aware, at least as an

intuitive glimmering. It did, however, provide me with potential solutions.

GLIMMERING #1: Lenore’s Law has another obvious corollary, though I was a long time

coming to full awareness of it: dumb it down. But, the serious novelist cries, I’M A SERIOUS

NOVELIST! I wasn’t there yet. It’s about the market, and the market is dumb, dumb, dumb.

That’s the real meaning of Lenore’s Law. It’s possible to reject the notion that all readers are

stupid—as I’ve said, I’m not sure even Lenore thinks that—without disbelieving that the market

is dumb. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.

GLIMMERING #2: The marketplace consists of more than target readers. It includes all the

people who stand between the novelist and those target readers. It includes not only the obvious

intermediary functions—agenting, editing, publishing, bookselling—but the functions subsidiary

or related to them that, in effect, interpret the marketplace for both writer and reader. To a large

extent, interpretation also defines the marketplace.

Literary fiction ignores, to one degree or another, not only the conventions that drive genre

fiction, but the marketplace as well. It rests on the belief that talent overcomes the marketplace.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 84

With an unpublished novelist, this notion introduces the element of risk. The marketplace pays

lip service to quality, but it doesn’t like risk. To put it mildly.

GLIMMERING #3: To become publishable, a first novel (literary fiction division) must do

one of three things. 1) It has to become something else. OR 2) Those who can get the book

published have to think it is something else. OR 3) They have to make the target reader think it

is something else. (There’s a fourth alternative but we’ll get to that much later.)

GLIMMERING #4: The second of these options will work only if the powers-that-be decide

that the book already is something else or, if not, that the third option is viable. Being risk averse,

they aren’t likely to do that. So the first option looks like the best.

If the novel is too long, it may seem that one of the obvious ways to make it something else is

to make it shorter. Making a long first novel shorter is a priority, but a shorter piece of literary

fiction is still literary fiction. My second draft experience suggested that simply trimming the fat

—cutting words and pages—not only doesn’t make it something else, it doesn’t even make the

book that much shorter.

GLIMMERING #5: You don’t make literary fiction into something else by shortening it.

You shorten it by making it into something else.

GLIMMERING #6: How to make a piece of literary fiction into something else: dumb it

down.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 85

PART III

________________________________________________________________________

Something Else

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 86

Chapter 9

Dumb and Dumber – Part I

Working with a professional editor through additional drafts of Not Fade Away taught me that

dumbing it down, more often than not, is a two-tiered process. The first involves understanding

and working with the marketplace, the second giving up any claim to being a SERIOUS

NOVELIST—whether one writes with the speed of Flaubert or not.

Let’s be clear, though. By the time a first novel reaches a professional editor, that editor is

taking the novelist plenty seriously. The latter may still be a Wannabe, but he or she has become

a professional Wannabe. As with most distinctions between amateur and professional, this one

involves the payment of money.

Be that as it may—as it unquestionably is—the writer no longer finds him- or herself alone in

treacherous waters, at best rudderless, directionless, and surrounded by sharks, at worst

becalmed. He or she now has the editor for a guide. The secret of survival, however, is to

maintain a healthy sense of danger, to regard the editor as a navigator steering by the stars rather

than by radar, experienced and reliable but not infallible. The stars, to complete the analogy, are

THE RULES.

The latter serve two functions. One applies to improving the writing, the other to improving

the prospects of the writing in the marketplace—i.e. representation by an agent, sale to a

traditional publisher, then sale to enough readers at least to cover the cost of the editing to the

author. The inevitable overlapping and confusion of the two functions takes the novelist to

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 87

DUMB. A thorough misunderstanding or rigid misapplication of the two—or, of course, both—

takes the novelist to DUMBER.

In the last chapter I remarked that literary fiction ignores both genre conventions and the

marketplace. It doesn’t, however, dismiss THE RULES—not entirely, anyway. And many

aspects of the editing process don’t qualify as dumbing down at all. The attention to spelling,

punctuation, grammar, and the other mechanics of writing, the concern for coherence, concision,

and the construction of sentences and paragraphs, the ability to suggest the right word or phrase

or, better yet, to spot the wrong one, improve even the best writing almost beyond measure. Most

usefully, and at its best, editing provides not only an essential second pair of eyes, but a

professional, experienced pair of eyes.

Such scrutiny contributes not only in these ways, but to plot and character development as

well. For example, with Not Fade Away Lenore Raven suggested a major change following the

beating up scene and preceding Andy’s illness. Instead of the published sequence in which

several plot lines come together as the family sorts and packs up Grandma Celia’s possessions, I

had a dinner scene between Andy and Marty, then a brief chapter in which Andy confronts

Emily with what Marty has told him about Hattie Mae working for them only part time. These

repeated certain information and were less dramatic than the scene at Grandma Celia’s house.

In short, many of THE RULES affecting the writing—and, therefore, driving the editing—

make so much sense that it seems harsh also to think of them as way stations on the road to

DUMB. Consider these, for instance:

Show, don’t tell.

Start close to the action.

Less is more.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 88

Don’t hold out on the reader.

Murder your darlings.

I have no quarrel with these as useful guidelines. Most had a salutary, shortening effect on

subsequent drafts of Not Fade Away, so that the final, “marketable” version was forty percent as

long as the first draft.

Show, don’t tell is the dramatize RULE; it stresses both conflict and action.

Start close to the action is a closely related RULE; it reduces exposition and description to

what is essential, thereby reducing the length of scenes and chapters. It has a cognate in the

RULE that tells a screenwriter to enter a scene as late, and exit it as early, as possible.

Less is more is the antidote to overwriting, the madeleine rather than the layer cake (although

Proust himself is not exactly a model in this regard).

Don’t hold out on the reader is the RULE derived from “all readers are stupid” and “all

readers are lazy,” which are no more RULES than they are laws. They are beliefs—for those

who believe them. I, for one, don’t (they are utter nonsense), and I’m in pretty good company.

Henry James, in the Preface to The Wings of the Dove, emphasizes that the enjoyment of a work

of art is not greatest “when the work asks for as little attention as possible.” More recently, Ian

McEwan has remarked that “narrative tension is primarily about withholding information.” As

Wilkie Collins insisted fully a hundred and fifty years ago in regard to readers, “Make ‘em laugh,

make ‘em cry, make ‘em wait.”

Murder your darlings is—well, the subject of a separate chapter.

Why do I regard the application of these RULES as also and inevitably a means of dumbing

down literary fiction? The answer is I don’t. My difficulty isn’t with the application of them, but

the misapplication.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 89

They are misapplied because they are misunderstood. Or, indeed, understood.

Many other RULES exist, most of them just plain silly—not because of what they state, but

because of the absolutism with which they are applied.

Avoid “ly” adverbs. . . . Don’t use the passive voice. . . . Don’t use flashbacks. . . .

Some RULES are silly only in juxtaposition to another RULE, which also becomes silly.

Read a lot of good fiction. Learn from the masters. . . . Don’t read too much good fiction.

You’ll simply be imitating the masters. (Excuse me—that’s a bad thing?)

Some RULES are at once silly and infuriating. Of these I’m going to mention only one:

Always end a chapter with the “point of view” character.

The short riposte to this RULE is a simple but resounding what the fuck? A longer one is that

in ANY work of fiction the point of view “character” is ALWAYS (as in, without exception) the

narrator. That is to say POV isn’t a character, but a strategy and a technique for presenting action

and character. As such, though the narrator (even a third-person one) isn’t simply or

categorically “the author,” the narration (as opposed to, say, character development), is always

under the author’s conscious control.

That being the case, let’s break down POV in the current context. First-person narration and

third-person omniscient are equally straightforward. With the former, every chapter ends by

definition with the POV character. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee might have ended a

chapter with a line of dialogue spoken by Atticus Finch, but that doesn’t mean the chapter would

have ended from any POV other than that of Scout, the narrator. With third-person omniscient,

again by definition, POV isn’t restricted to any particular character—regardless of whether we

identify the narrator as “the author.”

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 90

So the gray area, in theory at least, becomes third-person limited POV. Let’s even assume

that a novel, The Ambassadors, for example, is narrated entirely from that point of view. Henry

James’s novel isn’t (as early as page one, it isn’t), but let’s pretend. So Strether, at once

intoxicated by and regretful of the life’s banquet that is Paris, ends with the passionate entreaty

to little Bilham at Gloriani’s garden party, “Live all you can; it’s a mistake not to.” And that

chapter, one of the most important in the book, immediately concludes—remember, we’re

pretending—with the following sentence: “Gee, Lambert, thought little Bilham, studying his

friend’s innocent expressive countenance, tell me what you really think.” According to THE

RULES, this would be a bad thing. I repeat, What the fuck? It might be a bad choice in that

context, but not because of any general, inflexible RULE about it.

And, yes, there’s also a RULE that says Don’t digress.

Of the five “non-silly,” RULES I’ve selected, let’s examine the single belief behind the first

three, and in relation to the ostensible purpose of each. Don’t hold out on the reader also has a

purpose, serving as a sort of Fairness Doctrine. (If Andy realizes that Great-Grandpa Simon is

coming to live in his bedroom, he ought to let the reader know about it.) Murder your darlings is

—well, the subject of a separate chapter.

The essence of the first three RULES is, respectively, dramatize, accelerate, select. The

ostensible purpose of all three is to sharpen “conflict,” a word that no Howtu-write guide can

mention without noting that “the essence of drama is conflict.” But the belief that drives these

RULES is: the reader is easily bored. One could, of course, take that statement about drama as

literally as possible and agree that, “Yes, the essence of drama is conflict, but the essence of

narrative is—what?” It isn’t drama, not entirely. It has dramatic elements, but it has other

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 91

elements as well. Point of view for one thing. Description for another. It has action, but it has an

interior life as well. Thought, memory, perception. The essence of narrative is—narration. It is a

tale, a telling. If it were pure drama, it would be a play; if it were pure action, it would be a

movie.

Bingo! Now we’re getting somewhere. Hold that thought.

A tale being something told, it is absurd to stipulate something inherently “wrong” or

ineffective about telling rather than showing. Nor is it valid to insist on a clear distinction

between the two. Everything in a narrative is telling. Whether point of view is first-person or

third-person, limited or omniscient, the story is related by a teller, not a shower—or, rather, a

show-er. The Wings of the Dove again: James doesn’t show us the final scene between Merton

Densher and Milly Theale; he tells us about it, as a function of narrative point of view, and for

reasons he is clear to elucidate in his Preface to the novel.

Consider two areas where the distinction is said to be important: basic exposition and

character description. Is it “better” for information to be conveyed by action or dialogue rather

than related directly? Maybe; maybe not. (There is, inevitably, a RULE against burying

exposition in dialogue. The only rule should be against doing it clumsily, as in The Collected

Works of Dan Brown.) It depends on the particular tale, the particular telling. “For the first six

weeks that Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.” So the omniscient narrator of

Somerset Maugham’s “Sanatorium” tells the reader in the opening paragraph. Isn’t that more

economical than even the following terse exchange?

“Did you hear?”

“Hear what, old boy?

“It’s all over the club. Ashenden has tuberculosis.”

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 92

Or should Maugham have begun with pure showing? “Ashenden coughed into a white

handkerchief. When he took it from his mouth, it had a bright stain of blood on it.” No, because

the story isn’t about Ashenden’s tuberculosis. By the middle of that first paragraph he is up and

about among the other patients. His TB is what Alfred Hitchcock called a “Maguffin.”

Or read one of the most famous openings in American fiction: In my younger and more

vulnerable years, my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever

since. ‘Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone,’ he told me, ‘just remember that all the people

in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.’

Or Huck Finn again: You don’t know me without you have read a book by the name of The

Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain’t no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain,

and he told the truth mainly.

Some of the most memorable narrative prose ever written has been telling rather than

showing. Nick Carraway tells us the guest list at Gatsby’s mansion; he doesn’t show all the

guests arriving, because the comedy and the invention are in the names of the guests. The

Zuckerman/Portnoy/Kepesh narratives of Philip Roth are so rich and inventive that one scarcely

notices that they are extended monologues. And just as there’s no crying in baseball, there’s no

drama in a monologue. You need dialogue for that. With a monologue, the only drama is in what

is told. Also see Molly Bloom’s soliloquy, which—you’ll excuse the expression—has the balls

to be an internal monologue.

Similarly, with character description: Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a

comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence;

and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her. Of what

possible use would it be, as an alternative, for Jane Fairfax and Miss Bates to describe Emma by

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 93

discussing her? “That Emma, so handsome and clever,” sighed Miss Bates. “Yeah,” agreed Jane.

“And don’t forget rich.”

Of what use for Mr. Knightley to say, “You know, Emma, you’re handsome, clever, and rich,

and you’re not a bitch, but you are a meddler”? For the purpose of Jane Austen’s tale, how much

more effective to have that economical, omniscient opening sentence, the better to show through

the ensuing narrative how much that brief description says about Emma Woodhouse.

Start close to the action is an elaboration of Show, don’t tell built on an opposition implicit in

the latter: showing is active; telling is static. Therefore, showing means action. Well, not exactly.

Showing means action, but it may also include the implications of the action and reflections on

the action. To insist that action is showing in its purest, if not only, form is to conflate what is

related with the way in which it is related—not so that each complements the other, but so that

one obliterates the other.

The sentence, “Dick crossed the street” starts closer to the action than “I saw Dick cross the

street” or “Tom saw Dick cross the street.” Strictly speaking, the latter two sentences are also

telling rather than showing, because they explicitly introduce a narrator. But they are also

potentially richer in action, because the narrator integrates action with point of view. Did Dick

actually cross the street or did the narrator only think it was Dick and act on that misinformation?

The possibilities grow richer still with, “Tom thought he saw Dick cross the street.” We now the

character’s awareness of a possible mistake, though it puts us at two removes from the action. So

the first sentence doesn’t make the narrative better, only shorter. And it saves the reader the work

of dealing with the implications of the action. Start close to the action, as a reflection of the

belief that the reader is easily bored, really means, Don’t bore the reader by making that reader

think. Another way of saying, all readers are lazy.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 94

Less is more would seem to contradict that notion. The RULE encompasses two values:

selection and suggestiveness. What the novelist includes should not only contribute to the

narrative, but also imply what hasn’t been included. Ernest Hemingway applied this principle

better, or at least more famously, than anyone. The economy of language, the emphasis on nouns

and verbs at the expense of adjectives and adverbs, the reliance on anaphora, serve as a

commentary on the meaning of the words not used. Similarly, the specificity and compression of

what is revealed in an action or situation suggests that the weight of the tale lies below the

surface details. See “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place” or “Hills Like White Elephants” as a perfect

example of this technique. They explain the “iceberg” metaphor routinely applied to

Hemingway’s method. Not to mix metaphors, but in no way is the iceberg method a form of

dumbing down. Unless it’s the movie Titanic.

If, however, one isn’t Hemingway (or Samuel Beckett), and most of us aren’t, the Less is

more RULE isn’t all that it appears to be. For one thing, eliminate enough of the iceberg and the

only thing floating on the water is a chunk of ice. It’s possible not only to shorten a novel

without improving it, but also to inflict great damage on it if the only goal is to shorten it. In

other words, less is less. For another, however large, the iceberg may not have been an iceberg to

begin with, only a chunk of ice floating on the water. If there is no more, no amount of less will

create it. In either case, the RULE supports rather contradicts the first two RULES.

So does the fourth RULE. Don’t hold out on the reader doesn’t mean tell the reader

everything. Nor does it mean what I suggested earlier—that the reader has a right to know

whatever the narrator knows. What if withholding something of this sort from the reader

increases the effectiveness of the tale? That the nameless governess narrating the bulk of “The

Turn of the Screw” may or may not be hallucinating as to the ghosts increases the ambiguity of

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 95

the tale. The narrator of the frame story—or, more likely, the narrator’s friend, Douglas, who

knew the governess in the past and wrote down her narrative—may also know that the governess

later spent time in an asylum—or that she didn’t. Should he tell the reader out of fairness? The

second narrator in Iain Pears’s An Instance of the Fingerpost, Jack Prescott, is assuredly mad, but

he doesn’t know it, and the reader doesn’t either until the fourth narrator makes it clear. The

reader isn’t confused, simply unaware, which makes the shock of discovering the second

narrator’s madness all the more acute and satisfying. In both works, less information is more.

So what the RULE really means is, Don’t make the reader do any unnecessary work.

All of THE RULES purport to be about the writing but are in fact about the marketplace. They

mean don’t bore the reader with description or exposition that can’t be disguised as something

else. They mean less narrative, more dialogue. They mean spell everything out. They mean

novels short enough to be screenplays, so that they can more easily become movies. They mean

novels that look more like screenplays, so that they can more easily become movies. They mean

novels that look more and more like each other, so that they can more easily become movies.

Better yet, movie “franchises.”

I grew up with the movies. As a boy and young man, I defined existence and experience

through them. The first draft of Not Fade Away contained so many movie allusions that if I’d cut

all of them, I’d probably have had a publishable second draft. I love good movies, bad movies,

great movies, trash movies. I’m capable of watching Citizen Kane and The Killer Shrews in the

same evening and enjoying them equally.

My beef as a writer, since I obviously have one, is with what movies have made of the reading

culture. Not readers, but the culture in which they try to function as readers. It isn’t readers who

are stupid, but a culture—a marketplace—that assumes they are stupid. Or lazy. Or both. Movies

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 96

did not create this culture—not exactly. They merely pander to it. They do so in a way that has

less to do with considerations of form and content—more action, less description, shorter scenes

and passages of dialogue—than with commercial possibilities. I suspect that profitability in the

publishing and marketing of fiction has far less to do with what readers will buy than what

filmmakers will buy. Duh, Ron!

Nor is my quarrel with certain precepts as to the writing of fiction. Nothing about the

application of THE RULES I’ve described (and others) should necessarily turn literary fiction

into something else. To the extent that they can help reduce an overlong novel to publishable

length, they achieve the salutary effect I mentioned in regard to the overlong early version of my

own novel. In this sense they are only an elaboration or variation on “the second pair of eyes”

process I noted above. But once a novelist or an editor or both begins to employ them, DUMB

looms on the horizon. That this is, also on the face of it, not necessarily a bad thing, makes it no

less inevitable.

To sum up, I believe the process of dumbing down occurs for three reasons. First, as I’ve

already suggested, THE RULES are RULES rather than guidelines; that is, they are regarded as

absolutes, as radar rather than reckoning. Second, THE RULES don’t say what they really mean.

Third, because of the first two reasons, THE RULES mean that the process will end, almost as

inevitably, not at DUMB but DUMBER. That, so far from being a good thing, is almost always a

bad one. For the serious novelist.

Oh, wait a minute. Before I say why, I see that I still haven’t discussed one of THE RULES I

listed. Murder your darlings is—well, the subject of another chapter.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 97

Chapter 10

Murder Your Darlings

Who said it first? Many, if not most people, who interest themselves in the question credit the

phrase to William Faulkner. But Faulkner’s formulation was, “You must kill your little darlings.”

The phrase actually appears to have originated with Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch in On the Art of

Writing (1914). “Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine

writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press.

Murder your darlings.”

Whoever first formulated it, it takes precedence over any of the other RULES I’ve referenced

as a guide to making a novel, especially a first novel, publishable. Quiller-Couch’s comment

occurs in a chapter called “On Style” and specifically refers to “fine writing.” And “fine writing”

sounds like something suspiciously close to “over the top” or “purple prose,” if not always or

precisely that. Faulkner doesn’t specify, and his dictum comes closer to the pervasive way in

which freelance editors apply the RULE. Both versions apply, however.

Murder your darlings prescribes some severe medicine, particularly to the sickly, bloated

early drafts of a novel. The RULE mandates deleting a passage because the author produces it as

a piece of “fine writing.” By extension, fine writing becomes not only a matter of style, but

encompasses anything the author particularly likes—any “darling.” In this sense, it prescribes

penance for the sin of pride. It says that if the author likes a passage, it must somehow be “too

much,” as fine writing is stylistically. It therefore becomes a version of the Less is more RULE,

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 98

an inversion of it: More is less. It says, with devastating simplicity, that if a novel is too long, it

must be because too many words and pages are given over to the novelist’s darlings.

So application of the RULE has gone way beyond Quiller-Couch’s “fine writing.” Agents and

editors view it as the fixit for all that may ail a novel. It serves as the literary version of

“terminate with extreme prejudice.” The novelist is not only licensed to kill, but required to.

The good news: it works. It works because it puts everything on the table for revision or

deletion. The bad news: it puts everything on the table for revision or deletion.

The question becomes not is the killing legal or effective, but is it necessary? Does it make a

novel better, or only shorter? The supposition of Faulkner’s dictum and, up to a point, that of

Quiller-Couch, is that murdering your darlings improves a book. And it does. So the question

becomes, does murdering your darlings really mean what it seems to mean?

To answer that question, one might usefully go back past Faulkner and even Quiller-Couch all

the way to Samuel Johnson. “Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a

passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.” The danger of “fine writing” is still

there, but note also the word “passage.” It is a little more specific than Quiller-Couch’s “piece of

writing.” Though it condones murder (“strike it out”), it establishes the limits of a “darling” as

something less than extensive. It emphasizes the words themselves, their arrangement and

felicity, rather than, say, the structure of the work as a whole or the manipulation of point of

view in a novel, or the narrative strategies employed. It refers to style—a la Quiller-Couch.

Finally, the word “darlings.” Obviously, they are things the writer loves too much, if not

beyond all reason. But the RULE isn’t Murder your loved ones or You must kill your best

friends. The sin the writer is being warned against with darlings, starting with Dr. Johnson and

Quiller-Couch, isn’t overwriting or even “purple prose,” much less telling rather than showing or

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 99

starting too far from the action or a detailed description of a room or a neighborhood, but

cleverness. Moreover, it is cleverness as evinced in a particular turn of phrase. As if I was to say,

for example: “Too often ‘murder your darlings’ becomes ‘the Slaughter of the Innocents.’”

That sentence is nothing if not a darling. Whether it should be murdered or not is depends on

several factors, not least the context in which it occurs. Nor should we ignore the RULE’s middle

word, YOUR. James Woolcott noted in a profile of the writer Dwight Macdonald that the latter

referred to “an inner veto power. ‘When I say no, I’m always right, and when I say yes I’m

almost always wrong.’” Even a first novelist generally knows when a passage is a darling that

should be murdered, even if an editor has to put the knife in his hands. In chapter 14 of Not Fade

Away, when Andy lies ill and can’t help with the sorting out and packing up at Grandma Celia’s

house, I had initially written: “I felt like an island in the middle of a great river, various currents

of life swirling around me, lapping insistently at the shores of a feverish, ruminative lassitude

and slowly but steadily eroding the banks of inaction.” I’d always known that sentence was a

darling, but it took Lenore Raven to make me murder it. The sentence now reads: “I felt like an

island in the middle of a great river, various currents of life swirling purposefully around me.”

For me, the original sentence and its revision illustrate what Murder your darlings really

means and how the RULE ought to operate. It makes the book better. It is anything but a marker

on the road to DUMB, much less DUMBER. But unless a novel is lousy with darlings—and that

is unlikely even with a work of literary fiction (except Finnegan’s Wake)—murdering them will

not make the book appreciably shorter. When the RULE becomes a means of doing anything

necessary to reduce a book to saleable length, the process crosses the line into DUMB. When the

process makes the novel into something the author scarcely recognizes, when it becomes not

only something else, but something else entirely, the process has entered DUMBER.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 100

Chapter 11

Dumb and Dumber – Part II

The progression from DUMB to DUMBER appears in film adaptations of novels all the time

and does much to explain why good and even great novels seldom make good or great movies.

Too many of the elements that produce a fine novel get lost in the adaptation. This occurs partly,

and inevitably, because of the relationship between the feasible, marketable running time of a

movie and the reading time of all but the shortest novels. It also occurs because narrative

complexity must give way to the dramatic and visual requirements of conventional

moviemaking. On the other hand, genre fiction and popular fiction generally, even pulp novels,

often make fine films (Double Indemnity, The Searchers, The Godfather, The Silence of the

Lambs), because the narrative complexity of literary fiction wasn’t there to begin with and

doesn’t act as a constraint on the filmmaker.

The rare exception of fine literary fiction making an equally fine film usually means that the

screenwriter or director or both devised some filmic equivalent of narrative complexity. The

French Lieutenant’s Woman serves as a paradigm here, with the film’s modern frame story of a

movie being made of the novel replacing the narrator’s ironic, retrospective take on Victorian

England. Voice-over narration in a film may effectively supply a similar equivalent (The

Magnificent Ambersons, The Age of Innocence). Curiously, though, when voice-over merely

duplicates passages of memorable first-person narration, complexity seems a hit (To Kill A

Mockingbird) or miss (The Great Gatsby, all versions) proposition, perhaps because the voice

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 101

belongs to a character in the film. Success then depends on whether telling complements

showing or competes with it.

A much more recent example of the successful adaptation of a quality novel, No Country for

Old Men, rather begs the question. Despite Cormac McCarthy’s artistic pedigree, one wonders if

the novel can be described as literary fiction at all. As Walter Kim noted in his New York Times

review of the novel, “the characters' states of mind rate little commentary and are completely

dissolved in their behavior, which consists of fleeing and fighting and little else.” The tale has “a

mechanistic certitude that satisfies the brain's brute love of pattern and bypasses its lofty

emotional centers.” In short, the novel is a superior genre piece, a noir thriller with a Texas

accent.

I mention film adaptations because of my earlier comments regarding the effect of movies on

the literary marketplace and to illustrate why the narrative elements usually removed in an

adaptation represent a form of dumbing down. (In this context, the salient point about No

Country for Old Men is that these elements didn’t have to be removed because they weren’t there

in the first place.) Given the running time parameters of most films, dumbing down reflects not

so much audience stupidity as limited attention span and impatience. One difference between a

moviegoer and the reader of a novel, one so obvious and so often overlooked that it seems to be

deliberately ignored, is that a moviegoer is captive in a way that a reader is not. Within a ninety-

minute or two-hour time span, a movie not only has to capture the viewer’s attention, but to keep

moving. A reader, however, can proceed at any pace he or she chooses. Presented with narrative

complexity, the reader can put the book down and step away to mull that complexity for a time

before returning to it. That is one of the pleasures of reading. (To be sure, one can turn off and

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 102

step away from a DVD viewed at home, but somehow the “imprint” isn’t there, because the

movement has ceased; the pause interrupts rather than amplifies.)

Read the opening pages of The Wings of the Dove quickly and see if you know what’s going

on. Not much, except inside the head of Kate Croy; the difficulty of the syntax reflects what is

happening there. The long opening paragraphs have to be read several times, and ruminated

upon, before the rhythm of the prose becomes familiar and comprehensible and before the reader

forms some notion of “the action” beyond, “She waited, Kate Croy, for her father to come

in . . .” And waiting (unless it’s in Casablanca) scarcely qualifies as action. The film version of

the novel is a good one, largely faithful to the plot and with a strong central performance, but it

isn’t the novel Henry James wrote in terms of narrative technique or complexity. These account

for the difference, whatever quibbles one may have with plot, casting, or a slightly changed

ending. The film is all dramatic action rather than point of view, whereas James insists in his

Preface that “there is no economy of treatment without an adopted, a related point of view.”

Why is this loss of narrative complexity DUMB rather than different, attributable to the

formal requirements and constraints of another medium? Well, I’m exaggerating—though not

much—to make a point. The translation of serious fiction to film is a form of dumbing down

because the movie marketplace isn’t reality but a construct or simulacrum of reality. The reality

of movie adaptation has to do with running time; the simulacrum has to do with what should fill

that running time. What fills running time derives from the marketing perception of who buys the

most movie tickets. Guess what: it’s not the same people who buy literary fiction.

This is DUMB because it assumes that the movie-going public is homogeneous and that

commercial success therefore consists of one predictable set of factors. This is DUMB because

the assumption, and the behavior it engenders, persist despite the persistent success of “small”

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 103

films. Such evidence produces not a more sophisticated perception of the variety of potential

audiences, but a greater leveling of moviemaking to guarantee the loyalty of that nonexistent

homogeneous audience. That is even DUMBER.

I have dwelt on this process because it applies to novel-writing and publication as well. It

would be easy to blame the movies for inevitably—given the nature of the relationship between

them—infecting the writing and publication of fiction with the DUMB virus and the even more

virulent DUMBER. As I suggested earlier, while there is a great deal of truth to that assertion,

especially as a contemporary phenomenon, I don’t think the movies created the virus. It grows

and flourishes in a culture—social and political as well as literary—that is profoundly hostile to

complexity of any kind. It’s possible to get into a chicken-egg argument here, but I believe that

DUMB and DUMBER helped create the popular art of the movies rather than the reverse. What

is another kind of narrative that prefers simplicity to complexity? That’s right—a myth. Another

possible definition of a myth, a variation on the one I provided earlier, is something we believe

instead of history. As I noted earlier, one of the things American movies have been particularly

good at is rewriting our history as myth (see chapter 19).

Not that the process hadn’t begun early in our literature. Huck Finn is vastly outnumbered by

the boy-heroes of Horatio Alger. For every Natty Bumppo or Nick of the Woods or Young

Goodman Brown, there exist scores of Deadeye Dicks and fictionalized versions of Kit Carson

and Buffalo Bill. The highest aspirations and judgments of our literary culture demand big ideas,

expansive themes, and—in fiction—narrative complexity. They even demand—omigod!—great

length.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 104

Our popular culture, on the other hand, values none of these things, though the mainstream

audience is not entirely to blame. Rightly or wrongly, literary fiction is regarded as a highbrow

commodity in a culture that has always been balanced precariously between middlebrow and

lowbrow. In a marketplace aggressively defined as anything but highbrow, such fiction must be

dumbed down to become marketable, especially for the unpublished novelist. Our popular

culture only seems to be tipping ever more rapidly in you-know-which direction, when in fact it

was ever thus. It never was a country for old men—unless you’re Cormac McCarthy.

The actual process of dumbing down is easily stated. It consists of rigorous application of

THE RULES to simplify narrative construction, make the timeline and action sequential, and

transform the implicit to the explicit. To the extent that the novelist retains control of this

process, the effect is minimal—less is more—and the results may work to the benefit of all

concerned. Whether working with an editor or not, the novelist must own the process, utilizing

the “inner veto” in the murder of his or her darlings.

Not that the process is ever that straightforward. An agent or an editor or both may mouth

assurance that the final veto rests with the writer while doing everything possible to usurp that

veto. That this struggle is neither devious nor unscrupulous (usually) only makes it the more

insidious. Those in thrall to the marketplace, being risk averse and perceiving risk in every

elegant turn of phrase and twist of the narrative, every subplot and subordinate clause, will

overcompensate for that risk. The writer, in turn, must respect the risk but resist the

overcompensation. The veto must be “inner” not because it rests finally with the writer, but

because it originates with the writer.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 105

However unequal this struggle for the unpublished novelist, it may create a workable and

useful tension, serving to apply the brakes to both the writer and the marketing “element” before

either becomes a runaway train. When the balance of power doesn’t hold, however, virtually all

of the advantage goes to the marketing side. The novelist has his integrity and amour-propre but

little else. He or she probably doesn’t have an agent and almost certainly will never have a book

deal. Or, if that last sentence isn’t true, the one preceding it isn’t either. That’s the game. DUMB

or DUMBER.

DUMB, in my view, represents an adjustment to the marketplace rather than a complete

capitulation to it. DUMB may reshape a serious novel, but DUMBER goes a crucial step further

and misshapes that novel, because it distorts the reality that DUMB recognizes. DUMB makes a

virtue of necessity; it is transactional, and those involved understand the price being paid and

what that price buys. DUMBER abuses and degrades necessity, driving up the price to support a

marketing structure built entirely on fear. DUMB is a prostitute; DUMBER is a pimp.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 106

Chapter 12

Not Fading Away

I’ve gone into the how of making literary fiction into something else, but haven’t said what I

imagined that something else to be for my own first novel. I was still fairly dumb myself when I

entered into the first of multiple edits with Lenore Raven, but I was smart enough to realize that

my notion of something else and hers probably wouldn’t mesh perfectly.

It’s perhaps clear by now that something else means “lacking in complexity.” Combine this

with the how factor, and the definition becomes algebraic: literary fiction – complexity =

something else. This definition reflects Lenore’s influence rather than my natural inclination.

Though I had become more than willing to transform the book into something else to get it

published, I wanted Not Fade Away to not fade away.

That desire formed the tension of our relationship, a necessary tension if a novel, not to

mention the novelist, is to avoid becoming something else ENTIRELY.

Lenore completed her first pass through the novel in May, 2001. (At the time, I didn’t realize

it was only a first pass.) I’d sent her my original draft rather than my ineffectual revision. In for a

penny, in for a pound. Or 5.3 pounds, the weight of 853 typed pages.

The following excerpts from her critique summarize her overall reaction:

“. . .the framework and all the elements of a viable novel.”

“. . .a plausible and sympathetic protagonist in Andy Lerner, who operates in a believable

twentieth-century American setting.”

“. . . credible conflicts that create dramas and minidramas that play out through the book.”

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 107

“What I see in Not Fade Away is a talented and articulate writer who is flexing his literary

muscles, writing in the exuberant flush of creativity almost as if his next breath depended upon it,

much as I imagine Thomas Wolfe wrote. But Wolfe needed an equally talented editor, Max

Perkins, to restrain him and compress his prodigious output into lasting works of literature,

didn’t he?”

Yes, he did. I scarcely needed reminding of the Thomas Wolfe/Max Perkins thing. And I

understood the additional comparison she was making.

Her recommendations for improving the book all turned on its excessive length:

Show, don’t tell.

Start close to the action.

Less is more.

Don’t hold out on the reader.

Murder your darlings.

Okay, she didn’t put it that way exactly. Well, actually, she did, but she amplified each of

these recommendations and provided specific examples from my own writing.

I want to be clear. I didn’t come to my awareness of, and smoldering resentment at, THE

RULES because of Lenore Raven. I knew about them not only from the Howtu books, but from

literary criticism as well, of which I’d imbibed immoderate, if not lethal, doses in graduate

school. Besides, Lenore was right. I had plenty to learn in regard to each one of her

recommendations. But it proved to be a matter of degree rather than kind.

Lenore considered, for example, that I’d done a good job of showing rather than telling.

“Remember, too, that from the reader’s perspective, action is all-important.” And “writers should

have the word Show tattooed on the back of their left hand and Don’t Tell on the other, and they

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 108

should chant those words like a mantra while they work.” As I’ve emphasized, it’s the

absolutism of THE RULES and their mechanistic application that I find a problem. They ought

to lead novelists to conclude that, like Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter, they should have

LOVE and HATE tattooed on the backs of their hands as well.

Though her initial write-up wasted little time in using the phrase murder your darlings to

indicate that everything was on the table for revision or elimination, I’ve already demonstrated

that in actual practice she usually limited herself to the “fine writing” that the original Dr.

Johnson/Quiller-Couch stricture really seems to address.

Less is more became the paring down of particular descriptive passages to reduce the

multiplicity of detail, especially early in the narrative, rather than a radical reduction in the scope

of the plot or the removal of certain characters.

Show, don’t tell became primarily the conveying of information through dialogue rather than

internal rumination by Andy. Despite the “all-importance” of action and the obligatory “Never

forget that story means drama,” start close to the action meant pretty literally what it said. At the

start of chapters and sections, I tried to avoid either interior monologue, a character sketch, or

some other form of what Lenore called “narrator voice-over.” Much of this therefore overlapped

with the application of Show, don’t tell.

Don’t hold out on the reader—in this pass through the book—meant that I always and

immediately indicate the time and place of each scene and that I leave no plot points unresolved

at the end of the book. I knew I was writing a sequel, but the reader didn’t. I realized I was trying

to finesse that situation and not doing a good job of it.

Curiously, the problem of the book’s length finally reduced itself to a single issue: the frequent

flashbacks. That some of them were extended sequences, that some were embedded in the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 109

middle of sequences that had to be resumed, and that some included information extraneous to

the flow of the narrative, made their effect on the number of words and pages excessive, out of

all proportion to the value or entertainment they provided. Add to them a more subtle and even

more pervasive form of flashback that Lenore called the “switchback,” my habit of starting a

chapter or major section at one point in time and then having Andy recap how or why he was

where he was, and the effect on length was that much more pernicious.

Once most of the flashbacks were eliminated, the narrative could be pared down by applying

Lenore’s other recommendations. Instead of substantially reducing the novel’s length, the latter

served a more useful function of continuing to reduce the length after the bulk of the cutting had

been performed. This approach made the smaller cuts more significant (in terms of length) in

proportion to the now smaller bulk of the book.

But to regard the major reason for the length of the initial draft and the key to reducing it as

first a violation and then an application of THE RULES, one has to view the embedded

flashbacks as a “darling.” Okay. If using them as a structural device to show the past impinging

upon the present amounts to “fine writing,” so be it. Still, though I had minimal difficulty

aligning the “inner veto” with Lenore’s advice, I’m not so sure.

Where the veto failed to kick in concerned the retrospective mode of the narrative, the issue I

alluded to in chapter 3 of this book. This issue had nothing to do with flashbacks or switchbacks,

but with the narrator’s tone and his perspective on the story. What I didn’t introduce earlier was

another factor in the editorial tension I’ve referred to, one that had a direct effect on how the

story should or should not be “framed.”

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 110

Lenore did four passes through the novel. The last was a line edit, and most of the detailed,

hands-on work occurred there, line by torturous line. Indeed, substantial portions of many

chapters were rewritten during that edit.

The write-up after the first edit noted that “Not Fade Away is a ‘frame story’; it begins after

all the action is complete. Your narrator is the adult recounting events in his life as a fifteen-year-

old. At least that’s what we learn eventually.” She cited John Irving’s A Prayer for Owen Meany

as an example of framing a narrative and added: “Frame stories always sacrifice immediacy, but

you gain the perspective of a narrator who can interpret the events as we look back on them; thus

the framed story offers two perspectives—the young protagonist who experiences the events and

the older person who can tell us what it meant to him. You may also lose suspense, as Irving

does, but you can make that sacrifice if you think it will offer more gains than losses.”

Exactly. No demur beyond suggesting that the novelist might not sacrifice suspense so much

as provide suspense of a different kind. No correction except that her words imply a reader of the

first draft wouldn’t realize that a frame story is being told until well after the opening. In fact,

less than three hundred words into that draft came the sentence I quoted earlier: “Or so I

remember it, at a great remove of time and distance.”

What Lenore didn’t suggest in May, 2001, was that I eliminate the retrospective framing. Nor

did she conflate it with the embedded flashbacks. Making the action of the story sequential didn’t

make it any less a memory. Indeed, in that first write-up and others, she suggested ways of

making the frame story more effective. No mention of removing it entirely occurred until

December, 2005, at the beginning of the line edit.

I understood Lenore’s reasoning. “We are striving for immediacy,” she wrote me. “That's also

why we advised against the literary opening of chapter 1.” Further: “If you take a highly

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 111

descriptive manuscript that unfolds fairly slowly, then wrap it in a cocoon of retrospection,

which also slows the story, then you are not going to keep your reader captivated. The

acquisitions editors don't have the time or the patience to float through a leisurely book. . . . If we

want a crack at a contract, we have to deliver rapid blows.”

Note three things in that statement. First, the pronoun we. Lenore had recently hired Rick

Usher to assist with the line edit. From her statement, as well as a rewrite of chapter 1 suggested

by Rick, I concluded he was responsible for so late a change in regard to the frame story. I might

have wondered why that hadn’t occurred to Lenore earlier. (In fact, I did wonder.) The second

point of interest is your reader—singular. Contrast it with acquisitions editors—plural. There is

only one reader, whose taste, preferences, and patience can all be precisely calibrated.

Acquisitions editors are no less undifferentiated, but they are a group, united by their lack of

time and patience to “float” through books. It’s a subtle distinction, reinforcing not the

connection of writer and reader, but their separation, and calling attention to those who do most

of the work. One writer, one reader, and a whole impregnable phalanx of professionals between

them. It’s up to them to let the writer through. Who do you think really rules the marketplace?

Of course, I’m parsing the hell out of that statement and assuming some distinctions on

Lenore’s part that I can’t prove. I may simply be paranoid, but Lenore’s statement neatly

encapsulates many of the pluses and minuses of the editing process.

Lenore wasn’t wrong. The book did have to get past the acquisitions editors (assuming it ever

attracted an agent), and they weren’t likely to be interested in a book that dawdled. It would

never get to “the reader.” Therefore: Acquisitions editors = the reader.

But by the time Lenore and Rick suggested eliminating the frame story, the book was down to

four hundred typewritten pages. Most of the lush descriptiveness had been curtailed. Getting rid

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 112

of the frame story might increase pace but wouldn’t shorten the book that much more. So what

did author dawdling/reader floating actually mean? Were they the same thing?

I concluded that they were, at least to the acquisitions editors. The issue was no longer length,

but something else. “We are striving for immediacy.” In that same email, Lenore wrote of the

beating up scene being rendered within the frame story: “A turning point in your book, an

intense plot spike, loses much of its intensity.” Something else = immediacy. Immediacy =

intensity. Therefore: Something else = intensity.

But there was more, “the bones of the story after the adult retrospective is removed—the real-

time adolescence of Andy. You will see that we are doing quite a bit of work on it because it's

heavy with description (albeit gorgeous writing) and not so heavy as I'd like, for marketing

purposes, on action. I'm sure you can see how we are worsening some situations, making some

of the characters' behavior more extreme, etc.”

Such an endeavor produces numerous possible formulations:

Story – (retrospection + description) = immediacy.

Action = story – (retrospection + description). Therefore:

Action = immediacy. Moreover:

Action = extreme(situation + behavior).

Extreme = intense. Therefore:

Extreme(situation + behavior) = intensity. Therefore:

Extreme(situation + behavior) = immediacy. Therefore:

Extreme(situation + behavior) = something else.

And let’s not forget the equation with which this chapter began:

Literary fiction – complexity = something else. Therefore:

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 113

Literary fiction – complexity = immediacy = intensity = action. Therefore:

Literary fiction – complexity = Extreme(situation + behavior).

I also devised another proposition: Author dawdling = reader floating. To which I would add

several other possibilities:

Reader floating = reader not captivated.

Author dawdling = leisurely narrative.

Leisurely narrative = (retrospection + description) + extreme(situation + behavior)/extreme.

Therefore:

Leisurely narrative = retrospection + description + situation + behavior. Therefore:

Leisurely narrative = complexity. Therefore:

Complexity = literary fiction. Therefore:

Literary fiction = author dawdling.

Author dawdling = reader not captivated.

Literary fiction = reader not captivated.

If I’ve exaggerated, it’s because the assumptions about the literary marketplace that give rise

to such “equations” rest on reasoning as absolute but unprovable as they are. “If we want a crack

at a contract, we have to deliver rapid blows.” That sounds like a mixed metaphor, but it isn’t.

The first novelist isn’t fighting for the title, but for a shot at the title. That’s fine. But the writer

has not only to score knockouts in the qualifying fights, but to score them quickly—not because

that’s the best or only way to fight, not even because it protects the fighter, but simply to

minimize the promoter’s risk. And yet, one of the greatest of heavyweight boxers was able to

sting like a bee because he floated like a butterfly. Muhammad Ali wasn’t DUMB; Sonny Liston

was. Ali didn’t fade away; Liston did. Ali was an artist; Liston was something else entirely.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 114

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Once I began to think in those terms, I saw how I, as a

first novelist, wasn’t going to fade away either. Or become something else entirely.

Lenore prefaced her comments about retrospective narration by saying, “I'm really happy to

discuss this with you further. This is your book, and you must feel good about the direction it

takes.” This statement coincided with a recommendation to delete an allusion to the Clutter

family of Holcomb, Kansas, whose murder provided the source of Truman Capote’s In Cold

Blood (1966), the film version of it in 1967, and the more recent film Capote (2005). Lenore and

Rick thought this allusion would suggest a connection to one or more of these and inhibit “the

reader’s” suspension of disbelief for my book. Their logic still escapes me, except that Andy

wasn’t likely to have known about the Clutters until 1966 (making the allusion retrospective).

But by 2005, I understood the mindset behind so ludicrous a comment. I responded with an email

stating that the novel was literary fiction and that I did not want it “dumbed down.”

Lenore’s reply provided the epigraph of this book. I got the point, having known when I

wrote the email what the nature of her response would be. But I had made my point. I restored

the retrospective mode—selectively but immediately. Four paragraphs into chapter one, Andy

says, “In those days I often thought my Grandma Celia would have made a better first lady than

Mrs. Eisenhower.” The reference to Lionel Kahn as a future Watergate Special Prosecutor from

the passage I quoted in chapter 6 of this book also reappeared, though in a different context. Note

too that the frame story is only implicit in the reference to the Clutter family. Andy could have

read a brief, back-page item in the newspaper similar to the story that caught Truman Capote’s

interest. (I admit I’m in Edmund Wilson/Turn of the Screw country here. It can get pretty silly.)

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 115

I applied the same strategy to other aspects of the dumbing down process. The aftermath of

the beating alludes to the original version of The Fly, and to Dean Martin in the equally classic

western, Rio Bravo. The two allusions from Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities in the same paragraph

are less explicit, but “recalled to life” has more familiarity to likely readers—as opposed to “the

reader”—than the Brooks of Sheffield episode in David Copperfield. So felicitous a phrase might

even prompt such readers to seek its source if they don’t already know it. None of these is

baffling and frustrating in the way that “the declaration from Independence” would have been.

And one final word about the fly that recalls Andy to life—a buzzing fly. The allusion to Emily

Dickinson’s poem “I Heard a Fly Buzz When I Died” is transparent. A reader either knows the

poem or not. If not, nothing about the buzzing fly suggests that they ought to know it.

What had I gained by restoring the retrospective mode in this fashion? A detailed look at that

last example reveals that the allusiveness is closely linked to the frame story.

Was it only later that I recalled the moment in Rio Bravo when Dean Martin hears the

"Cut-throat Song" and his hands stop shaking? Did I really appreciate, then and there, the

irony of being recalled to life not by Mr. Jarvis Lorry of Tellson's Bank, London, but by

—The Fly? It doesn’t matter. Something quickened at my core, some impulse primal and

undeniable and real, not to bleat “Help me! Help me!” but to stand up and get moving.

No matter what anyone said or did to me, I knew I wasn’t a pile of shit.

The phrase “Was it only later . . .?” reasserts the retrospective framework, suggesting not only

that “later” is much later than, say, the following week, but that the narrator is recalling that

“later” from an even more distant perspective. Andy’s use of the word “irony” also suggests the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 116

mature reflector on past events. The allusiveness reinforces the significance of this act of

memory without compromising either the plausibility or immediacy of the remembered

experience. We’re really talking about three movie allusions, because at the time of the beating

Andy has more probably seen the 1935 version of A Tale of Two Cities starring Ronald Colman

on TV than read the original novel. (Indeed, Andy confirms this in chapter 41.) They establish

the cultural context in which the young Andy lives without making him unbelievably erudite for

his age and situation. “Help me! Help me!” is one of the most famous exit lines in movie history.

Andy doesn’t say, for example, “Was it only later that I recalled that moment in Stendhal’s The

Red and the Black when Julien Sorel . . .?” Nevertheless, the chain of allusion establishes a

sophisticated connection between the horror of what has just occurred, the death and rebirth of

which it is the catalyst, and the possibility of redemption. The significance of the experience lies

not only in its actuality, but in the mature, recollected understanding of that actuality.

The allusive, retrospective framework therefore creates possibilities that “immediacy” does

not without seriously compromising the flow of the narrative. On the contrary, it enhances the

action, because it generates suspense that readers will ultimately find more satisfying.

Immediacy asks, does Andy survive? Of course, he does; that’s a given of the book’s existence.

The survival question produces scarcely a ripple in the line of action. In contrast, though

retrospection makes survival moot, it offers three spikes in suspense. Does Andy get revenge? If,

so how does he get revenge? And what does it cost him?

My decision to let my title do much of the retrospective work enabled me to be more selective

in the retrospection. The title is an allusion that suggests the narrative framing. I also said in

chapter 3 that the retrospective mode made me the writer that I am. Writing for me is as much an

act of memory as of creation. I bring to it not only my experience, the people I’ve met, and their

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 117

experiences, but the books I’ve read, the movies I’ve seen, the music I’ve heard. All supply the

frame story of my fiction, the imaginative reconstruction of which is its substance. It is, to quote

Wordsworth again, “emotion recollected in tranquility.” It is history, not current events.

In Memoirs of a Fox-hunting Man (1928), the first of his three George Sherston books,

Siegfried Sassoon writes: “As I remember and write, I grin, but not unkindly, at my distant and

callow self and the absurdities which constitute his chronicle. To my mind the only thing that

matters is to do something. Middle-aged retrospection may decide that it wasn’t worth doing; but

the perceptions of maturity are often sapless and restrictive; and ‘the thoughts of youth are long,

long thoughts,’ even though they are only about buying a racing-cap.” What strikes me about this

passage in a memoir disguised as a novel disguised as a memoir is the balance between

immediacy and retrospection. Each is richer because of the other. I wouldn’t go so far as to

suggest that the racing-cap is Sassoon’s madeleine—the passage doesn’t work that way; the

memory is anything but involuntary—but the simplicity of what is going on is deceptive. The

balance exists because the retrospection neither supersedes nor judges the earlier experience; it

neither chooses experience over innocence nor views it as the superior state. Instead, the

reflexive relationship between the two establishes both the immediacy and the meaning of the

past as the end-state of mature reflection. Except for the war poems, I hadn’t read Sassoon when

I wrote the passage I quoted above from Not Fade Away, but I might have.

In any case, I had finally learned to apply in a consistent fashion the necessary tension

between author and the marketplace that would work for me—if not (as it turned out) my editing

partners. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Less is more.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 118

PART IV

________________________________________________________________________

Believe It or Not

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 119

Chapter 13

What’s in a Name?

The first serious glitch in the editing process concerned the naming of characters. In every

draft of the novel, Lester Todman had always had the same name, which may owe something to

the Mark Goodson-Bill Todman team that produced television quiz shows in the nineteen fifties.

But I had a more important reason for selecting that name. Lester has the diminutive “Les,”

which implies “less,” not as in less is more, but as in less there than meets the eye. Moreover, in

German—Great-Grandpa Simon’s native language—tod Mann means “dead man.” I intended

Lester Todman’s name to suggest something about the character and to establish an ironic

contrast between him and another, even more important character. In short, a “darling”—but a

transparent one, like the buzzing fly.

During the line edit, Lenore pointed out the similarity between that name and “Todd

Berman.” I had two character names of four syllables or less with two of the syllables identical.

Lenore believed the reader would confuse these character names. “Readers recognize names

mainly by sight, not by sounding them out. We want to have the names as distinctive as possible,

to make certain the reader will recognize each one at a glance.” Apparently, I ran the risk of the

reader thinking that one of Andy’s contemporaries and close friends was sleeping with Andy’s

mother and was likely to end up as his stepfather.

Other names presented similar, if lesser problems. In chapter two, at the first country club

dance, several teenage girls had first names beginning with “M.” Melanie, Melissa, Marilyn.

(Not to mention that Melanie has a brother named Milton and Andy an algebra tutor named

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 120

Mabel Beecham.) Well, at least I had Andy and Norman gobbling Hersheyettes at the dance

rather than M&Ms.

I could simply have changed Todd Berman’s given name. I didn’t think of him as a dead man

(teaser: not in this book, anyway). Mark Berman, perhaps? I dunno—another M. In any case, a

change of given name wouldn’t solve the problem, as Lenore stated it. “I’m worried about these

names being so similar: Todd Berman, Judy Berman, Lester Todman, Andy Lerner.” To which

she might have added Norman Nodler’s first name.

On the other hand, these names weren’t all darlings. There’s nothing clever about “Judy

Berman.” “Norman Nodler” is alliteratively comic, but hardly a piece of “fine writing.” All of

the names were consistent with the milieu of my boyhood. I knew countless Bermans,

Silvermans, Glassmans, Grossmans, and Weismans. I even knew a Nodler, though not a Norman

Nodler. I knew plenty of other Normans, however, as well as Marks and Todds and Larrys,

Melanies, Melissas, and Marilyns. To me the names I chose originally didn’t seem that similar.

Would anyone really confuse Todd Berman with Lester Todman? My wife didn’t. And who

cared if there was a Melanie, a Melissa, and a Marilyn at the same party if the latter two were

mentioned only once and never appeared again? Lenore hadn’t said anything about the names in

the three previous edits (remember that for later), so how serious could the issue be?

Nevertheless, I conceded her point about reader name recognition. Not every potential reader

was Jewish or grew up in Houston in the 1950s and 1960s, though that wasn’t what really began

to trouble me. Nor did any potential “inner veto” focus on the current darling—my symbolic

naming of Lester Todman. Instead, I focused on Todman/Berman and Lester/Lerner. Change

only those, I thought, and everything else was much less potentially confusing. The murder of a

darling would occur, but only as collateral damage. Because I didn’t want to change the Berman

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 121

and Lerner surnames more than I didn’t want to change the Todman surname, Todman became

Glick. I also changed Lester to Leo, because Lester looked a lot like Lerner.

In an exchange of emails, Lenore agreed with my notion on the major problem with the

names and how to fix it. This solution provides a perfect example of DUMB that doesn’t cross

the line to DUMBER. It’s a concession to a notion of the marketplace that may or may not be

true. “Readers recognize names mainly by sight, not by sounding them out.” Even if it is true, it

assumes all potential readers will have the same tendency. (I, for one, don’t.) It assumes that all

the characters are herded onto the first page of the novel and introduced there. On the other hand,

it’s a painless concession, as many editing changes are. It didn’t alter the book in any but the

most superficial sense. Lenore had a valid point about similarity—Berman/Todman;

Lester/Lerner—even if the assumption behind it was questionable. Perhaps whatever I gained by

suggesting that to Andy’s mother, Emily, Lester Todman was interchangeable with Bernie

Lerner as husband material, I’d lose by making Lester and Bernie similar “failed” fathers. Better,

maybe, to give Johnny One-Note a one-syllable surname as well. In playing DUMB and

ostensibly making the book just one teeny bit less Ukrainian, I was thinking in Ukrainian.

The change achieved a ripple effect. Left undone, it might have been both a problem in the

work and a negative factor in marketing it. Having made it, however, I didn’t have to make

wholesale changes that would have made no character name resemble, in sound or syllable, that

of another. Perhaps what occurred was not after all the murder of a darling, but something

analogous to it that accomplished the same thing. I’d also suggest that the editing process worked

smoothly in this instance because even in recognizing the primacy of the marketplace it managed

to finesse slavish adherence to THE RULES. Lenore found the single name change effective, but

didn’t chide me for thinking in Ukrainian (even if she thought I was doing so). I appreciated her

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 122

insight as a way of identifying a naming problem that I don’t believe would have occurred to me

if I’d been working alone. Life was good. Would that the matter had ended there.

Not much later in the line edit Lenore got to the name Cornel Greenberg. He is a guest at the

Lerner home after Grandma Celia’s funeral. “Is this a real name for a Jewish man?” asked

Lenore. “Is it spelled correctly? Because I don’t want anything to trip up your readers and take

them from suspended disbelief, I think this name needs to go.”

I was puzzled. I knew Jewish men of an older generation named Lionel and Ansel, if not

Cornel—though I had an Uncle Arthur who bore a strong resemblance to Cornel Wilde. Lenore

informed me that she had consulted the court of last resort. “I searched the Web for men named

Cornel, and I couldn’t find one except Cornel Wilde, who first appeared in films as ‘Robert

Cornel.’” I replied that her web search had missed the American writer Cornell (two l’s)

Woolrich, who wrote “It Had to be Murder” (the short story source of Hitchcock’s Rear

Window), and The Bride Wore Black (which Truffaut filmed), and it had missed Cornell

Borchers, a German actress of the nineteen fifties.

Trivial, no? Trivial, yes. As Jessie Royce Landis says to Cary Grant, arrested for drunk

driving in North by Northwest, “Pay the two dollars, Roger.” Make the change, Ron. As a matter

of fact, I did make it. Or rather I recast the section involving Cornel Greenberg and others like it

as overheard dialogue rather than as Andy telling the reader what he’s overheard. All in all, not a

bad thing. Show, don’t tell.

Still, the very triviality of the Cornel Greenberg issue continued to nag at me.

Tripping up my readers? How? Why? Was this a contradictory corollary to THE RULE about

not keeping the reader in the dark? Don’t keep anything back, but don’t startle the reader either.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 123

So, in fiction, startling is a bad thing? But isn’t one of the pleasures of both novel-writing and

novel-reading an occasional jolt of the unexpected? All surprises are “startling,” or they wouldn’t

be surprises, but not necessarily jarring or discomfiting. They don’t always involve Janet Leigh

and a shower at the Bates Motel.

Take them from suspended disbelief? Almost a hundred pages into my novel a reader is going

to be incredulous that a character is named Cornel Greenberg? A character who never reappears

and isn’t even really a character, but someone, like the M girls in chapter 2, in the background?

And the incredulity is so severe that it destroys suspension of disbelief? Is the latter that fragile?

Perhaps, but not so fragile that it can’t be easily (not to mention ludicrously) rescued. “If you

need to have Cornel here, at least put the second L at the end, so it will look familiar to the

reader.” So the whole structure of suspended disbelief depends on a double L? You think?

Early in this book, I made the statement, “The reader will put up with any length if you

engage his or her imagination.” In fact, two things must happen for a novelist to secure the

reader: that reader’s imagination must be engaged, and he or she must suspend disbelief. These

two prerequisites are less unrelated than at first appears.

Shakespeare provides a useful starting point, specifically what Harold Bloom calls the

dramatist’s “invention of the human.” Whatever else that lavish claim means—no need to enter

into Ron Rosenbaum-style indignant hand-wringing over whether Bloom actually thinks that

Shakespeare is God (though Bloom was hardly the originator of that notion)—at the very least it

encompasses the creation of characters both believable and changeable. Shakespeare gave us

vividness, depth, and differentiation in the creation of character. He gave us human psychology

rather than the typology of medieval literature. Chaucer’s Pardoner is the grandfather of

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 124

Shakespeare’s Iago, but the Pardoner is inseparable from the age that produced him, while Iago

is a character for the ages.

In a sense, then, Shakespeare invented literary realism. The latter, of course, connects him to

the novel, which is primarily a realistic form, in that it attempts to replicate life as most of us

experience it in recognizable settings or situations (or both). And it would be difficult to identify

a good or great novel that isn’t character-driven. With Shakespeare as well, we think first and

foremost of character; that is how we have come to frame discussions of the plays. Not the

revenge plot of Hamlet, but Hamlet and his problems.

But the inventor of “realism” wrote plays in blank verse. I’m guessing that nowhere in the

world do ordinary people speak in that mode. Theatergoers and readers suspend their disbelief

that any “real” person would do so. That is what permits a writer working with the most artificial

and stylized of forms to be the “father” of realism.

Of course, we’re talking about Shakespeare. Not every playwright working in blank verse

could take for granted an audience’s “willing suspension of disbelief,” in Coleridge’s famous

formulation. Nor can everyone who writes a novel. And even the most “realistic” novel requires

suspension of disbelief, because no novel could ever possibly “happen.” (That is what makes the

very word “realism” a problematic literary term. As the James Shapiro observes in A Year in

the Life of William Shakespeare, theater is “fiction and realism a convention, an illusion.”)

Everything that occurs in a novel is an imitation of reality, a reality heightened, arranged, and

elaborated, a selection and compression of the elements that define reality: time, memory, action,

perception. Ulysses comes no closer to replicating real life than The Odyssey does. Look no

further than the novel’s shifting points of view. Doesn’t happen in real life; each of us is stuck in

his or her own mind.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 125

Joyce’s novel seems more “believable” the characters placed in historical time and a real city,

their occupations, concerns, and behavior closer to those of actual, ordinary people than are those

of gods and heroes. But believability isn't reality; rather, like Aristotle’s dramatic unities, it is a

set of conventions that enables the reader to suspend disbelief. In that sense, these conventions

don’t differ from those of epic poetry. So Joyce’s title and the structure of his novel demonstrate.

In an interview, the novelist Anthony Powell (A Dance to the Music of Time) both admitted and

made a virtue of the novel’s inability to replicate real life. “People think that because a novel's

invented it isn't true. Exactly the reverse is the case. Because a novel's invented, it's true.

Biography and memoirs can never be wholly true since they can't include every conceivable

circumstance of what happened. The novel can do that.”

Believability reverses the conventions that inform other, less realistic literary forms than the

novel. That is another insight implicit in Joyce’s use of them for his epic of a single “typical”

day. What drives the novel toward realism, formal as well as substantive, is its subject matter—

human character in all its complexity. This was Shakespeare’s “invention of the human,” the

typically human, despite his myriad of kings and princes, the distant or uncertain time periods of

his plays, and their “exotic” locales.

The conventions of a literary form serve both subject matter and the intended audience. As the

machinery that delivers the subject matter to the reader, they condition the reader’s expectations.

At the same time, they wouldn’t survive if the audience didn’t accept them and if the author

didn’t make effective use of them, satisfying and occasionally expanding those expectations. The

blank verse soliloquy provides the perfect vehicle for presenting the consciousness of a Hamlet

not only because Shakespeare was a genius—that lies in the poetry of the soliloquies—but

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 126

because the audience accepts it as an effective device for entering Hamlet’s mind. No one in any

audience at any time has ever believed they were really inside that mind. Even a film that uses

voice-over to portray a character “thinking” is employing another convention.

The poetry—the blank verse—enhances rather than inhibits suspension of disbelief because

the audience acknowledges the entire theatrical construct as illusion. (That’s not the Forest of

Arden, but trees painted on canvas.) Similarly, the conventions of epic poetry—the hero’s

journey to the underworld, for example—support a suspension of disbelief rooted in the

formulaic development of a familiar tale being told, or sung. With gods and heroes, anything can

happen because they’re unlike everyone else.

Early on, however, the novel turned previous literary conventions around. Thoroughly

grounded in the everyday world, it all but dispenses with the notion of illusion or artifice. More

accurately, it accomplishes a literary sleight of hand. By establishing believability as a

convention, it induces the willing suspension of disbelief necessary to any successful piece of

fiction. Repeat after me: No novel could ever really happen.

Consider again my reference in chapter 3 to Richardson’s Clarissa. The conventions of the

epistolary novel are no more real than those of the dramatic soliloquy; they only seem to be

because they rest on the commonplace activity of letter-writing. (If they don’t exist already,

novels structured entirely as a series of emails or text messages soon will.) So-called “stream-of-

consciousness”—as in Molly Bloom’s interior monologue—is likewise pure artifice grounded in

the most basic human functions and emotions. Leopold Bloom in Nighttown, presented as a

drama, is no more “realistic” an episode than Odysseus in the underworld. It doesn’t have to be.

Suspension of disbelief is an absolute; it either occurs or it doesn’t, and it is unconscious. It is an

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 127

act not of intellect, but of imagination. Anyone who tries to suspend disbelief almost surely fails

to do so.

With the novel, the act of imagination essential to suspension of disbelief occurs exclusively

in the reader’s mind, unaided by bardic song, legendary tales and familiar plots, theatrical sets,

actors’ masks or makeup, cinematography, or the shared assumptions of an audience, be they

groundlings or seated in a luxury stall. Theoretically, every novel is sui generis, its characters

and experiences the unique expression of the novelist’s interaction with “real life.” Write what

you know. To explore a unique take on real life—as opposed to, say, the Trojan War—a reader

must accept its basis in the real.

The conventions of believability are largely responsible for garnering the reader’s

participation, not because they ground the narrative in absolute faithfulness to reality, or

duplication of it, but because they provide the vehicle that allows the novelist’s imagination and

the reader’s to meld and to soar above reality. Even if it is an earthbound journey down a big

river. “You don’t know me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of

Tom Sawyer; but that ain’t no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the

truth mainly.”

Most novels are not unique. They're like having sex in the age of AIDS. The reader is reading

every book the novelist has ever read or otherwise encountered in the culture. Ulysses again

provides Exhibit A. Similarly, Kafka’s Gregor Samsa is Everyman, and the metamorphosis of

Philip Roth’s Everyman recalls Gregor’s physical decay. Philip Marlowe is Sir Galahad in a

fedora, Childe Roland at the Chateau Marmont.

What is unique, always, is the reader’s own experience of reading the novel, that melding of

his or her imagination with the author’s. And if the reader is anyone but my cousin and has a

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 128

prior reading history, the latter will also inform the current reading. And the first and most

important thing it will do is condition the suspension of disbelief.

A reader of Not Fade Away who has read Great Expectations or Absalom! Absalom or both is

probably easier to engage than one who hasn’t not because they recognize that Miss Beecham is

a version of Miss Havisham or Rosa Coldfield, but because they have been conditioned by their

reading to suspend disbelief in such a character. Thus, all the “unbelievable” elements associated

with Miss Beecham—her extreme isolation, the perfectly recreated antebellum mansion, the

howling dog, the flag-draped coffin—become less troublesome in a way similar to the naming

pattern in the novel. This is not the reader who will say, “Wait just a damn minute. How does the

dog know exactly when to howl? Why does he howl? What’s in that coffin?”

When readers say a novel isn’t believable or realistic, what they probably mean is that they

couldn’t suspend disbelief. Of a cleric in Barchester Towers, Henry James said that he could

believe a man was named Quiverful or that a man had fourteen children, but he couldn’t believe

that a man named Quiverful had fourteen children. That is disbelief unsuspended. But Trollope

also made use in several novels of a law firm named Slow and Bideawhile. James doesn’t

mention that name. So what general precept was he posing?

Quiverful and Slow and Bideawhile are symbolic naming—of a very crude sort. Slow and

Bideawhile is no less obvious in its intent than Quiverful, but it is a more effective name. Indeed,

the law firm is rather Trollope’s version of Krook’s shop in Dickens’s Bleak House or the

Circumlocution Office of Little Dorritt, employed for more than the mere comic effect of

Quiverful. For all its literalness, it carries some metaphoric weight. Though both names are

consistent with Trollopian realism, what James called “the complete appreciation of the usual,”

the law firm is more so. It joins Margin, Vellum, and Foolscap (stationers) in an accretion of

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 129

detail that becomes a densely threaded social fabric—the Balzacian Comedie Humaine that is

Trollope’s fiction. If it doesn’t inhibit suspension of disbelief as Quiverful does (for Henry James

at least), it’s because it has more valid credentials of believability. One can no more believe that

a law firm could really be called Slow and Bideawhile than that a man named Quiverful could

have fourteen children, but the latter name dangles from the social fabric like an errant thread.

And why? One suspects that in addition to the fourteen children, it’s because the name has an

artificiality compounded of sight, sound, and sense, especially applied to a cleric.

That is the paradox of realism. Believability induces suspension of disbelief. The more

artificial the literary form, the more artificial the conventions that produce this condition. That

sounds like another “law,” but it’s only another belief—mine. Still, it would seem to follow that

the same sort of artificiality will not work for the conventions of the novel.

Unfortunately, if the reader resists making the imaginative connection, the conventions of the

novel will do much of the work for him. That genre fiction regularly does provides another

distinction between it and literary fiction and explains much of its popular appeal. It’s no

accident that the movies are for the most part defined by genre. Historically, the studio system

and the star system which it absorbed and perfected, depended on genre; commercially, the

structure, casting, and marketing of movies depend on genre; critically, the auteur theory and its

derivatives depend on genre.

In fiction, genre conventions suspend the reader’s disbelief for him, conditioning not

imagination, but expectation. If boy and girl kiss happily on the last page of every romance

novel, then the reader’s imaginative journey to the last page may as well proceed on automatic

pilot, and almost certainly does so. The same applies to the opposite convention that ends the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 130

western; after the cleansing violence of the final gunfight, the laconic, loner hero passes up the

girl and moves on to the next town—his significant other being either his sidekick or his horse.

The mystery or detective novel is no less stylized than the romance and western, but its

conventions are more complex, giving rise to the numerous permutations of its sub-genres. It is a

genre, however, composed almost entirely of archetypes—loner P.I. male, loner P.I. female,

femme fatale, master criminal, psychopathic serial killer, bumbling police detective, snitch,

stoolie, maverick cop, brilliant ratiocinator. The striking thing about this variety and the

explanation for many mystery conventions is that most successful mysteries belong to a series

built around a hero/heroine or, less often, a locale. From Poe’s Dupin and Doyle’s Sherlock

Holmes to Sue Grafton’s Kinsey Millhone and Robert B. Parker’s Spenser, the detective

dependably reappears.

This is good marketing, of course. When Sherlock Holmes died with Moriarty at the

Reichenbach Falls, one wonders who was more outraged, Conan Doyle’s readers or his

publishers? Moreover, reappearance works with other mystery conventions such as titles

(Doyle’s “The Adventure of . . .” pattern, Grafton’s alphabet sequence) to obviate any concern

about willing suspension of disbelief. In a similar process, the romance novelist writes the same

ritualized story— true love as the Holy Grail—over and over again. (Homework assignment for

readers: where did the notion of “true love” originate?”)

Reappearance easily reinitiates the reader’s previous suspension of disbelief. That the reader

as well as the detective has returned makes “willingness” a given. But what prevents

reappearance from becoming, or seeming to become, repetition? The answer is—nothing. The

reader’s enjoyment, however temporary, derives from the repetition as evidenced in the

predictable, expected play of convention—the hero cracking-wise, the detective inspector

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 131

examining the murder scene, the medical examiner reading clues in an autopsy, the grilling of a

suspect, the masterful explanation in the library.

The reader isn’t soaring imaginatively on an authorial Concorde, merely carpooling with the

writer to a familiar destination. The commute is familiar, the ride not overlong. The reader soon

categorizes both the other passengers and the driver and occasionally discovers something new

about them. But anything new must remain within the bounds of convention. If one of the riders

suddenly opens the door and leaps into heavy, fast-moving traffic, the carpool is threatened, if

not destroyed. “I can’t believe he did that!”

Even repeatability may become an issue if it occurs outside established convention. The

mystery novels of Anne Perry offer a useful example. For me, neither the stylistic sloppiness

consequent upon publishing two novels a year for many years nor her overwrought diction

inhibits the believability of her work. Nor do her titles, the melodramatic connotations of those in

the William Monk series, the inevitable literary allusiveness of the World War One novels, or the

place-name pattern of her Thomas/Charlotte Pitt series. It is the relentless exoticism of her

character-naming that does the damage. Every minor character and not a few major ones must

carry a unique but utterly farfetched name. Or if not an unusual name, an unusual spelling: Alys

instead of Alice. Why must a character be named Lady Vespasia Cumming-Gould? I feel like

Henry James. I can believe (barely) that a woman has the first name of Vespasia or the last name

of Cumming-Gould, but I can’t abide both. “Readers recognize names mainly by sight, not by

sounding them out. We want to have the names as distinctive as possible, to make certain the

reader will recognize each one at a glance.” Yeah, sure—that’ll work.

In this superficial way Perry tries to distract the reader from her cliché-ridden style and mind-

numbing repetitiveness. The reader, she must think, will perceive this as evidence of a unique

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 132

style. Guess what—the reader won’t, because it isn’t. Anne Perry exists as a writer only because

she is a genre novelist, but in some profound way, despite her steady if unspectacular success,

she seems not to understand her own genre.

As a practitioner of the “historical mystery,” she has created a fictional world full of vivid

historical and period detail. That is her great strength, but she severely undercuts authenticity

with “the mysterious” rather than relying on the history itself. The character names inhibit

believability because they reflect an unnecessary disjunction between history and mystery. They

are symptomatic of a larger problem in her work. Steven Saylor’s mysteries set in Republican

Rome are believable because the mystery derives from the details of the historical moment, the

corruption and collapse of the republic, and they are peopled with many of the historical players

in that drama. In a genre that is at once highly conventionalized and profoundly character-driven,

Saylor’s characters connect history and mystery. Perry injects historical detail into what is

essentially another genre—the paranoid thriller in which powerful unseen forces manipulate

public events. As if Victorian imperialism and World War One did not offer subject matter on a

par with Republican Rome, Perry presents them as driven, respectively, by a sinister “Inner

Circle” and a “Peacemaker” less like Lloyd George than Lex Luthor. Her core readers, I suspect,

are lazy connoisseurs of Victoriana and the carnage of Ypres and the Somme, distantly

affectionate and all but disengaged. They suspend disbelief out of habit.

Anne Perry isn’t alone in writing a series about the Great War. As I noted in chapter 7, the

war and, especially, its aftermath now constitute a successful sub-genre of the detective story,

most conspicuously the Inspector Rutledge novels by Charles Todd and Jacqueline Winspear’s

Maisie Dobbs series. A comparison of the two series raises an interesting issue involving willing

suspension of disbelief. Inspector Rutledge, a war veteran, manages not only to return to his

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 133

civilian job, but to solve baffling murders despite a raging case of schizophrenia—frequently, if

not constantly, hearing the voice of a sergeant for whose wartime death he bears responsibility.

In the first book of the Maisie Dobbs series, however, the great love of the eponymous heroine’s

life becomes permanently incapacitated because of shell shock.

On the one hand, the reader is asked to accept that a central character can function despite a

crippling incapacity, on the other that a central character is rendered catatonic by the same

affliction. And the reader does suspend disbelief in both instances—though I have something of

a problem with Rutledge. The issue, as I see it, is that both series treat shell shock not as an

illness, but a plot device. One has only to compare these series to, say, Pat Barker’s Regeneration

trilogy, also a work of fiction about the First World War, to understand the difference between a

serious and trivial treatment of a similar theme and situation. Shell shock matters in Barker’s

work in a way that it doesn’t in the two series—it matters thematically, dramatically and, above

all, historically, involving real people in its core relationships. The madness of the Great War

forms the very substance of the work.

Not that there is anything wrong with how the two genre novelists use the familiar trope of

shell shock. As a device, it can serve diametrically opposite purposes in the two series. Both

series therefore set aside any fundamental truth about human psychology to serve genre

convention. That’s okay, as long as readers understand and accept the convention, as long as they

aren’t asked to take the treatment seriously, and as long as they don’t ignore or dismiss a more

serious treatment. That tripartite proposition is more difficult than it sounds, and for reasons not

altogether to do with the fictional treatment (see chapter 21).

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 134

I also noted early on how often both coming-of-age novels and detective fiction employ first-

person narration to make “discovery” on the reader’s part synchronous with that of the

protagonist. It’s no coincidence that the coming-of-age tale, viewed in genre terms, is no less

character-driven than most effective detective novels. Nor is it any accident, given the additional

elements I noted in chapter 7, that these novels sometimes cross over into general or serious

fiction. In a certain profound sense, it may be that all novels are detective stories. In any case,

Ruth Rendell and P.D. James, like Hammett and Chandler before them, are mystery writers, but

not purely, or merely, genre novelists. They don’t ignore genre conventions, but they do

transcend them, much as John Le Carre has with the spy thriller. And Daniel Silva hasn’t.

In establishing conventions and then outdistancing them, Hammett and Chandler meet one

criterion of the great writer. They opened up whole new territories for the writers who followed

them, as John D. MacDonald did in discovering Florida for the mystery genre. (And MacDonald

was far too good a novelist to need the “color” hook of his Travis McGee titles.) All three were

distinctive stylists, but so was James M. Cain, and he is not “unreservedly great,” because he

perfected a set of genre conventions without ever moving beyond them. Style alone won’t do it if

the conventions become formulaic.

I seem now to be juggling four balls: character-naming, its relationship to character

development, genre conventions, and believability. In fact, though, I’m tossing a single ball in

the air. For the writer this is good news and bad news. It’s easier to toss one ball in the air and

catch it than to juggle four. The bad news is that if the writer drops that one ball—well, he or she

has dropped the ball.

That ball might most accurately and usefully be called not believability, but narrative

persuasion. Which brings me to Patricia Highsmith and The Talented Mr. Ripley.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 135

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 136

Chapter 14

The Talented Miss Highsmith

In chapter 3, I remarked that a coming-of-age novel about a serial killer would be pushing the

envelope a bit too far. Well, The Talented Mr. Ripley goes some distance in that direction. Tom

Ripley is pretty fully formed from the outset, but as the novel proceeds he discovers his true

calling. Patricia Highsmith’s achievement in the Ripley books is to make a multiple murderer a

sympathetic protagonist. That is less shocking in the age of Hannibal Lecter than it was in 1955

(though Tom Ripley makes Hannibal Lecter possible). What remains remarkable is how

Highsmith accomplishes the feat.

It’s a truism that telling a story from a particular character’s point of view inevitably causes

the reader to sympathize, if not always to identify, with that character. Narrative point of view

usually produces “genuine” sympathy or identification; unlike, say, the soliloquy or dramatic

monologue, which tends to utilize irony as a distancing device. The reader knows that the duke

in Browning’s “My Last Duchess” is a monster largely because the duke obviously doesn’t know

it. Sympathy goes to the last duchess and the duchess to come from the negotiations between the

duke and his listener. Sympathy in the Ripley books goes not to Dickie Greenleaf and Tom’s

other victims, but to Tom himself because the reader identifies with Tom, who is a psychopath.

Either first-person or third-person point of view can achieve the effect I’m describing. One

tends to assume that first-person would work better than third, but that is not true. One might

also expect the Ripley books to employ first-person narration. They do not.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 137

Third-person narration often achieves what first-person cannot, and I don’t mean in terms of

omniscience or breadth of action. Consider the murder of Dickie Greenleaf. “Tom swung a left-

handed blow with the oar against the side of Dickie’s head” creates a sympathetic identification

that “Ripley swung a left-handed blow” would not, “Ripley” being less personal than “Tom.”

But what does “Tom swung the oar” achieve that “I swung the oar” does not?

Imagine The Ambassadors narrated by Lambert Strether. This is, of course, a somewhat

disingenuous example, given the well-known influence of James’s novel on The Talented Mr.

Ripley. It goes beyond the get-my-boy-back-from-Europe request that kick starts the plot, beyond

even the effect of Europe on the American protagonist, the awakening of consciousness that the

Old World engenders. As with Strether—the Jamesian “central intelligence” through whom the

action of The Ambassadors is filtered—the third-person narration ensures the presence of still

another filter. For the sake of convenience, call this filter “the narrator.”

On the first page of the novel, James makes an explicit distinction between Strether and the

narrator, using the term “I” for the latter. On the second page of The Talented Mr. Ripley,

Highsmith writes: “Tom saw the man make a gesture of postponement to the barman, and come

around the bar towards him. Here it was! Tom stared at him, paralyzed.” The effect in both

instances is the same. First-person narration would provide an opportunity for Tom Ripley to

elicit the reader’s sympathy by explaining or rationalizing his actions, but that is not Highsmith’s

game at all. Critics who speak of Tom Ripley “seducing” the reader as Humbert Humbert (a

first-person narrator) does in Lolita misunderstand Highsmith’s narrative technique.

For one thing, her acknowledgement of James’s influence extends to bringing The

Ambassadors itself into her book. Mr. Greenleaf recommends it to Tom, who later—a sly

author’s joke—considers stealing it. Tom proves to be the boy who followed Strether, but with a

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 138

difference. Tom is the American Adam, but a satanic one, an oxymoron that undercuts, and

ultimately negates, the distinction between opposites. That is Highsmith’s point. As she says in

Plotting and Writing Suspense Fiction (1966), "art has nothing to do with morality, convention

or moralizing." So Humbert Humbert is a pedophile, and Tom Ripley is a multiple murderer.

What’s the difference?

The difference is that Lolita is a novel about seduction (sexual and otherwise). The narrative

technique of the novel rehearses and underscores the novel’s subject. Humbert Humbert defies

moral standards. Indeed, the purpose of any seduction is to lead astray. As Lionel Trilling noted,

“we find ourselves the more shocked when we realize that, in the course of reading the novel, we

have come virtually to condone the violation it presents. . . . we have been seduced into

conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to

be revolting.” The Talented Mr. Ripley, however, is about subversion. In eliding the continuum

that runs from normality to abnormality, it questions not whether moral standards exist, but

whether they have any meaning or validity. Humbert Humbert pays for his actions. Tom Ripley

does not.. The five novels of the Ripliad are the great modern epic of getting-away-with-it.

But this means more than getting away with murder. The Ripliad is not wish-fulfillment or an

escape fantasy. It redefines murder, making it not an aberration, but a psychological necessity—

not only for the murderer, but for the victim. Murder becomes an “acceptable” form of human

interaction and an ironic commentary on the limits of that interaction.

Critics rightly focus on Highsmith’s matter-of-fact, unembellished style as a major factor in

achieving this radically subversive transformation. “Tom swung a left-handed blow with the oar

against the side of Dickie’s head” is as much a triumph of monotonic style as a masterful use of

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 139

point of view. But such an observation entails a separation of style and point of view that, while

possible, isn’t at all necessary.

Tom swung a left-handed blow with the oar against the side of Dickie’s head. The oar cut

a dull gash that filled with a line of blood as Tom watched. Dickie was on the bottom of the

boat, twisted, twisting. Dickie gave a groaning roar of protest that frightened Tom with its

loudness and strength. Tom hit him in the side of the neck, three times, chopping strokes

with the edge of the oar, as if the oar were an axe and Dickie’s neck a tree.

The narrator who is not Ripley plays Ripley like a violin, or perhaps a trombone. She sets

Tom Ripley apart from what Tom Ripley is doing—committing a brutal, sloppy murder—

alternately sliding him into the action and pulling him away from it. In so doing she sets the

reader apart as well, allowing him or her at once to participate and to disengage. The normal-

abnormal shifts from an antipodal continuum to a sliding scale. Sympathy with Ripley becomes

an index of the reader’s own dark anxieties and impulses.

Highsmith’s third-person point of view blends technique and substance no less brilliantly than

does Nabokov’s first-person narration in Lolita. Her strategy reenacts Sartre’s “keyhole”

anecdote in Being and Nothingness to dramatize the existential truth at the core of The Talented

Mr. Ripley: If, as a Highsmith’s biographer, Andrew Wilson, notes, an individual is

simultaneously the observer and the observed, then he or she is not an extension of the world, but

only an isolated object within it. As if the oar were an axe and Dickie’s neck a tree. Murder

becomes an acknowledgement of this isolation, the index of Tom Ripley’s realization that he can

never be one with Dickie Greenleaf or any human being, least of all himself. Tom can only

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 140

assume the murdered Dickie’s identity as a way of not remaining that isolated, vulnerable object

stranded within himself. Here the Ripliad itself becomes a metafiction.

For me the most problematic of literary devices is the use of identical twins (even as recently

as Tana French’s The Likeness). One must accept that the commoner who fills in for the king not

only looks exactly like him, but sounds exactly like him as well and either possesses the same

tics and mannerisms or has the acting skills to mimic them. With the possible exception of

Darnay/Carton in A Tale of Two Cities, mere resemblance is not enough. (I should also point out

that Dickens makes crucial rather than extended use of the resemblance. Unlike The Prisoner of

Zenda, the whole book isn’t about the imposture.) But, of course, everything depends on

suspension of disbelief, and the device is almost invariably used to enable melodramatic action

rather than to examine character itself. That is to say, it is invariably a plot device.

The convention, and the suspension of disbelief, rest on the assumption that identity is fluid

and superficial. Provide the right physical characteristics and opportunity, and one character

easily becomes another (as certain stand-up comics have convinced us for years). The ease with

which Tom poses as Dickie without actually resembling him plays with this notion of fluidity

and overturns it. It is the narrator/author, the creator of the fictional world, who makes Tom

Ripley an object in it. She can make Ripley sympathetic only by replicating, in her relationship

to her characters, the situation that makes him what he is. The making of fiction becomes an

existential act rather than a moral one.

The notion of the doppelganger does not apply here. In such an existentially observed

universe, no one has a double. The Ripliad has no Humbert Humbert/Clair Quilty relationship.

Nor does Tom “erase” the identity of his victims as, in some interpretations, Humbert replaces

Lolita’s with his own.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 141

Suspension of disbelief, then, rests not on the believability of the plot or the verisimilitude of

the action, but on the reader’s identification with, and acceptance of, the characters—beginning

with the protagonist. No one should underestimate the effect of even incidental character details

on believability. That is what it means to say that one can believe a man is named Quiverful or

that a man has fourteen children, but not that a man named Quiverful has fourteen children. Point

of view is essentially a means of revealing character and returns us to the notion that good fiction

is character-driven. It tells us that point of view is, ultimately, the engine that drives plot.

If all of these observations are valid, how is Cornel Greenberg any different than the

Reverend Mr. Quiverful or Lady Vespasia Cumming-Gould? The answer is, he isn’t. At least,

not in the sense that he is exempt from any of the conditions—dare I call them RULES?—that

govern narrative persuasion.

I believe that neither Cornel Greenberg nor any of my other character names, nor any names

like it used by any novelist—anytime, anywhere—will affect a reader’s suspension of disbelief.

Though essential to any fiction, suspension of disbelief is not a matter of one l or two; it is not a

matter of the number of names that begin with M, of names that have the same number of

syllables, or of names that have a particular syllable in common; it is not a matter of recognizing

a name by sight rather than sound. (A person reading a novel in Braille does neither.) Cornel

Greenberg could have been Seymour Greenberg or Romulus Wolfberg, and it wouldn’t have

made the slightest difference. Henry James’s issue is not with Quiverful, but with Quiverful

having fourteen children. The problem is not the name, but the name in association with the

character detail. (Romulus Wolfberg could have a twin named Remus, and the Quiverful rule

would apply only if accompanied by the detail that they’d been suckled by a she-wolf.)

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 142

For me Lady Vespasia Cumming-Gould crosses a slightly different line. The florid, Latinate

given name threatens suspension of disbelief because it undercuts the historically valid tension

between the aristocratic honorific and a hyphenate suggestive of a business fortune and a

purchased title. Though possibly a reference to the mother of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, so

what? The historical point is made without it. Such names add an excrescent layer of gingerbread

to Anne Perry’s already cluttered Victorian house of fiction. They attempt to disguise a structure

built on a foundation of concrete period detail but deeply fissured by historical fantasy and

reinforced only by the underpinnings of genre—its conventions, its repeatability, its conditioning

of reader expectations.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 143

Chapter 15

The Tipping Point

Coincident to the Cornel Greenberg exchange with Lenore, she and Rick Usher came to “a

parting of the ways” (Rick’s phrase). I was never sure of the reason, but it almost certainly

involved money, as Rick wanted to negotiate a separate payoff from me for the work he’d done.

And I hadn’t even hired him! Lenore had brought him on board to assist because of her client

load. She didn’t want the line edit of my book to take “forever.”

Well, it was not only taking forever, it was taking FUCKING forever. Lenore had committed

to a chapter a week, but after a year and a half (May, 2005-November, 2006), I’d received fifteen

of fifty chapters. So at the point where this final edit should have been finished for six months, it

was only thirty percent complete. During the same eighteen months, Lenore had undergone not

only the loss of her editorial associate, but also numerous email malfunctions and other computer

glitches, several bouts of flu, a protracted episode of TMJ, a long sequence of unsatisfactory

administrative assistants, and several Florida hurricanes. What’s an editor to do?

For a start, an editor might not want to waste a lot of time on the name Cornel. “I went on

baby-naming sites, international baby-naming sites, and came up with nothing.” Did I mention

that I was paying Lenore by the hour for the line edit? At a hefty rate? Maybe I should have gone

with Romulus Wolfberg after all. It has two l’s, even if they’re in two different words.

As I soon discovered, I should also have used the word “murmur” rather than “susurration” in

chapter 26. In chapter 32, I shouldn’t have called the dresser in Judy’s room a “chiffonier.” As

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 144

Lenore indicated via attached Internet photos of various pieces of furniture, even “chifferobe”

would work better than my choice.

Okay, got it. No problem there. My problem was with the web searches and the photo

attachments, which also included a series of wing chairs, as if it were necessary to identify

precisely Grandma Celia’s chair. I wasn’t paying an editor thousands of dollars to surf the

Internet. Better a thousand words than even one picture, if only because the editing was supposed

to be about the words and the pictures they created.

In no draft of Not Fade Away was suspension of disbelief so tenuous that under the slightest

strain it would snap like the Bridge of San Luis Rey. What seemed fragile, as well as flimsy and

increasingly erratic, was the editing of the novel. The shifting focus of the changes, the utter

nonsense of the reasoning behind them, brought everything about the process, past, present, and

to come, under suspicion. Call it unwilling suspension of belief in that process and my own

previous understanding of it.

To begin with, if these issues were so critical to the reader’s acceptance of the fiction, why

hadn’t they surfaced in earlier edits?

As I’ve already indicated, the line edit was Lenore’s fourth pass through the novel during the

years 2001-2007. Issues such as specific word choice and the name of a very minor character

might well not surface until a line edit. (Though, to repeat, not as issues affecting suspension of

disbelief.) So too with the length and pace of individual scenes and chapters, the effectiveness of

transitions, the aptness or usefulness of certain figures of speech or passages of dialogue. But the

similarity of major character names that Lenore called attention to pretty late in the game should

have been apparent in the first pass through the book, or the second at the latest. The same

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 145

applies to a bigger issue: the retrospective narrative mode. It also applies to what soon became

additional subjects of Lenore’s increasing concern: character relationships and plot structure.

For example, she was recommending changes that would have 1) made Marty/Judy the

central relationship of the novel rather than Andy/Judy 2) brought Andy and Melanie together as

boyfriend and girlfriend at the end of the book 3) depicted the “disintegration” of Andy’s family

because of Marty’s escapades as blatantly obvious and the subject of gossip in the local Jewish

community 4) created a public altercation between the Lerner and Berman families at the Fourth

of July country club barbecue because Judy was hiding stolen bottles of liquor at the Berman

home for Marty. (Huh? What was up with that?)

My own increasing concern—or, more accurately, my metastasizing paranoia—centered on

two questions. How closely had Lenore read the novel prior to the line edit? If the answer was

“not very,” or even “not enough,” what were the implications?

I reviewed the first two edits and the summaries Lenore had prepared, as well as the emails

dealing with a third read. I also verified what I already knew about the novel itself: nothing

fundamental about plot or character development had altered from draft to draft. To suggest, for

example, that the disintegration of the Lerner family be obvious and public implied a misreading,

or worse, a non-reading of the thematic centerpiece of the novel: “the lie that dwells at the heart

of things.” That Andy might not, or ought not, win and then lose Judy undercuts the very

maturity and insight that Andy spends the entire novel struggling to achieve.

Guess what? No mention of any of these concerns in the earlier edits. Lenore’s suggestions in

regard to character development had been at the level of making Perry, the gym attendant who

befriends Andy, less “flamboyant” and enlivening Melanie’s exchanges with Andy to make her

less of a ditz. I’d made changes accordingly.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 146

What I did discover, however, or rather what I revisited in a more dubious frame of mind,

were certain curious features of those earlier passes through the book.

I had paid Lenore a great deal of money to “edit” my novel, but I had ended up doing the

heavy lifting. She had made suggestions that had necessitated extensive revision and specific

rewrites rather than simple corrections (the latter generally grammatical or mechanical).

Up to a point, which I was a long time in reaching, I considered this situation neither

misrepresentation by her nor unfair to me. Rewriting is a natural part of writing, so far from

being detrimental that it almost always improves the original or earlier version; my novel

benefited from the rewriting process, as did my development as a writer. What I had failed to

perceive, however, was that the previous passes through the book, were actually preparatory

overviews for the real edit—the line edit. Therefore:

RECOGNITION #1: In terms of the first three passes through the novel, I had actually paid

Lenore Raven to READ those drafts. I had mistakenly assumed that because I was working with

an editor, she was editing from the get-go. What she had actually offered with those readings was

not extensive or substantive edits, but commentary, with the cost of the read based on the current

word count. These reads may have been professional—not only competent but timely, objective,

and constructive—but no matter how diligently I implemented her observations and

recommendations, I would never have a publishable draft until I had an edited draft. Therefore:

RECOGNITION #2: Line editing may not be the only kind of editing applied to a work of

fiction, but it’s the only kind that matters. Assuming the writer presents an editor with work that

is competent and potentially publishable, everything necessary to a publishable draft can be

accomplished with a single read, a rewrite based on that read, and then the line edit. But that

would be more work in less time for the editor; he or she would find it harder to balance the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 147

competing claims and priorities of multiple clients. More to the point, it’s far less profitable than

the long-haul approach. Therefore:

RECOGNITION #3: The editing process is not only expensive up front, it has hidden costs.

These involve not only money, but time, trust, concentration, and civility. The financial cost as a

substantial, absolute figure was, of course, a given. But that figure also had to be compared to the

amount of money I might eventually make on the published novel. Even if I could afford

multiple “edits,” the more money I spent made it less likely that I would recover a significant

portion of it in sales of the novel. So it was to my advantage (if not Lenore’s) to minimize the

number of passes through the book. Nevertheless, recovery of my expenditure wasn’t a high

priority for me, because I never expected to make much money from sales of my first novel.

The other types of cost were the more insidious and troubling ones. As the edits/reads

multiplied, they became a carrot-and-stick in regard to promised publication. In September,

2003, after the second edit (of my now revised and considerably shortened novel), Lenore’s

assistant-of-the-moment sent an email acknowledgment of payment. I knew Lenore liked my

book, but after $15,000, she really liked it! My book would be marketed “under Lenore’s name

and reputation using her contacts.” Such a pronouncement is bound to create a Superman effect

for any aspiring novelist. Publication suddenly becomes faster than a speeding bullet, the editor

more powerful than a locomotive, the first-time novelist able to leap tall buildings (that broad

phalanx of agents, readers, and acquisitions editors that controls access) at a single bound.

The revision after the first read had focused on reducing the book’s length. In her overview of

that second draft submitted to her, Lenore herself wrote: “I recall that this was the main thing I

suggested you do, so I congratulate you for biting the bullet and proceeding with that difficult

task. I hasten to add that all the bloodletting did nothing to harm your essential story or its

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 148

characters.” [R.G.’s emphasis] “In fact, Not Fade Away seems to have grown in its impact on

the reader rather than doing the opposite. You have succeeded, I think, in refining a big, rough

lump of ore into its most precious elements.”

Aside from odds and ends of grammar and mechanics, Lenore had only a pair of

recommendations: “Two fundamentals that could still use some fine-tuning are scene

conclusions and transitions, which often go hand in hand.” Hey, no problem! “Congratulations

again, Ron, for all your success in transforming Not Fade Away into its present form, and thanks

for giving me the pleasure of reading it again. You had to perform a great deal of grunt work to

develop this draft, and you had to be a diligent student to absorb so much technical information.

Anything else I might have to say about your writing brings us down to fine points that are better

left for the next stage—line editing. Once you have worked out the kinks discussed here this

manuscript will be ready for that final edit. If you would like me to help you in that regard, let

me know as soon as possible so that I can save you a place on my work calendar.”

You have succeeded, I think, in refining a big, rough lump of ore into its most precious

elements. Sounded like Not Fade Away was indeed lacking only the line edit. After taking time

to complete another draft to reflect the remaining fundamental changes and to recoup my

finances, I contacted Lenore in the spring of 2004. Because of a sudden change in her email

address that delayed my request, several weeks passed before I received a response. It wasn’t

what I’d expected. The manuscript required another read at an additional charge.

Perhaps I should have disputed this fee, but I didn’t. Given the months that had elapsed since

the second edit, as well as Lenore’s client load, I could accept that even though she might

remember saying my book was already primed for a line edit, she might not remember the details

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 149

of that read. And what she had said had not necessarily precluded another read, perhaps even the

reverse: I mean, how would she know if I’d worked out the “kinks discussed here?”

I’d outsmarted myself in two ways by not requesting the line edit immediately after Lenore’s

second read. I’d allowed enough time and other client work to come between Lenore and Not

Fade Away that she could legitimately be in need of a “refresher.” I’d then strengthened her case

by making not only the recommended revisions, but also in trimming an additional ten thousand

words from the manuscript to meet the magic hundred-thousand-word threshold. However much

I’d recouped my finances in the interim, the delay would now cost me an additional $1750.

As a result of that third read, which indicated that the lean, mean Not Fade Away was—wait

for it!—ready for line edit, Lenore wrote: "I see no need to cut anything else, to add anything

significant, to rearrange chapters, or to slave any further over things like characterization,

dialogue, and setting." That was the understanding with which I engaged Lenore for the line edit

early in the fall of 2004, having made only the relatively minor changes she’d recommended

after the third read. That was the contract between us.

Nevertheless, the line edit did not actually show up on Lenore’s radar until after the New

Year. During that time she experienced another glitch in her office email system, which again

slowed communication between us. I spent time, at her prior request, preparing chapter synopses

for the marketing effort. “You'll find lots of good instructions on the Web for that. Include an

author's bio with the synopsis, overview, and market analysis.” So again I was going to pay for

work, the bulk of which I was doing myself. In addition, also at Lenore’s urging, I continued to

tweak the novel’s retrospective opening.

During January, 2005, however, with the line edit set to begin, Lenore experienced another

“massive computer failure.” I did not hear from her until April, at which time she informed me

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 150

that she had “a bit of a waiting list right now for line-editing, so let me know if you'd be all right

with my outsourcing this to one of my colleagues. I'll go over it before we send it to agents.”

But even with the addition of Rick Usher, work did not begin until July, 2005. By then, to my

surprise, much had changed.

Rick’s participation coincided with two principal proposed alterations to the book. The action

had to occur in the here and now, and it had to be “edgier.” “The main thing,” Lenore wrote with

the line edit of chapter 1, “is to add action and tension, which will hook readers and set a number

of wheels in motion.” The retrospective mode would now be a barrier between the reader and

the action. “Literary agents and acquisitions editors rarely read beyond the first few paragraphs

of a manuscript submitted by a new writer unless the material grabs them around the throat and

won’t let go. We want Not Fade Away to have every chance of acceptance, so we have some

work to do here. In my first critique many moons ago I said you needed a better place to start

your story, and I suggested a few alternatives.” But as I noted in chapter 12, Lenore had actually

said something rather different: “Frame stories always sacrifice immediacy, but you gain the

perspective of a narrator who can interpret the events as we look back on them.”

Mere forgetfulness? I’d spent months working on and, in Lenore’s view, greatly improving an

opening that was suddenly to be scrapped. What was going on?

What I thought at the time was that more darlings were about to be murdered in cold blood.

Remember that this book is also retrospective and reflects everything that happened subsequently

in regard to the line edit. To repeat, only in light of later events did I begin seriously to question

everything that had led to the tipping point.

Clearly, that was a mistake on my part. I should have questioned things when those questions

first occurred to me. Why didn’t I? Well, the mea culpa has plenty of clauses to it, some literary

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 151

and some not. Day job, family, travel. All prevented me from focusing entirely on the task at

hand. But every human being copes with family and professional distractions, and they are at

best only a small part of the explanation.

The simple fact, the only real explanation, is that I was willing to do anything—pay any price,

bear any burden—to get the line edit completed, the book marketed and published. This meant

that, so far from questioning the process, I went ahead and made changes to the book that I

regarded as radical and unnecessary I said to myself, and to my wife, okay, I can always publish

my version after I’m famous. The director’s cut. Only when I became convinced that this edit

would drag on indefinitely and that there would, in all probability, be no marketing effort

spearheaded by Lenore did I pull the plug.

Lenore never met the chapter a week goal. Lenore never adhered to the previously stated

scope of the line edit, which became instead an exercise in entirely rewriting the novel on the fly.

Lenore never reread the rewritten chapters, the result being that she continued to raise issues that

had already been resolved. Lenore never responded to my questions until pushed, and as I

increasingly pushed back on her editing edicts, she increasingly responded, tonally if not

literally, “Do it because I’m the editor, and I’m telling you to do it.” Finally, Lenore billed me

over $1600 for editing chapter 30. Not only was that the end of trust and of civility, it produced

the biggest epiphany of all—my Lambert Strether moment, as when he saw Madame de Vionnet

and Chad Newsome on the river. Except that Chad Newsome wasn’t the one being screwed.

RECOGNITION #4: It’s not about the book, it’s about the money. It’s not about a payoff to

the process; it’s about drawing out the process for maximum profitability to the business. It’s not

about editing books; it’s about milking cash cows.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 152

In light of this realization—duh, Ron!—the earlier edits became nothing more than profitable

set-ups for the line edit that never ends. It can’t end, because there’s no payoff. The answer is

really remarkably simple, like “it’s the economy stupid!” in the 1992 presidential election. It’s

the money, stupid! My money and my stupidity.

To what extent do my complaints reflect on Lenore Raven’s personality and work habits

rather than the editing profession? It’s possible that it’s all personal. Lenore Raven may be a

train wreck. I never met her, never spoke to her by phone. Business was transacted and

impressions created via email and the Internet. I was in California and Lenore in Florida. At one

point, when information on her website indicated that she was offering intensive one-on-one

editing sessions at a cost of about $800 per day, I offered to come to Florida, convinced that face

to face we could resolve all issues and basically wrap up the line edit within a few days. (Can

you spell DESPERATE, boys and girls?) Lenore never responded to this offer. Either it wasn’t

ultimately cost effective or Lenore weighs in excess of three hundred pounds and is as reclusive

as Thomas Pynchon. On the other hand, Thomas Pynchon understands point of view.

Speculation aside, I don’t mean to suggest that Lenore’s business practices were the least bit

unusual or knowingly unscrupulous. At best this process is an imperfect one. I got angry about it,

and then ended it, only when greed, or the appearance of it, became too blatant. And to whatever

extent the shortcomings I detected in Lenore were personal, professional, or both, they had all

too much in common with everything else that goes on in Literary Wannabeland (see chapter

20).

Oh, forgot to mention—after I said nevermore to Lenore Raven, Leo Glick again became

Lester Todman.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 153

PART V

________________________________________________________________________

Wannabeland

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 154

Chapter 16

White Rabbit

Theory: Wannabeland is all about teaching the Wannabe: how to write, how to make the

writing marketable, how to market the writing, how to network, how to avoid the pitfalls no one

else avoids, how to overcome rejection, disappointment, and despair.

Fact: Wannabeland is all about money—the Wannabe’s money. It’s about not only following

the Pied Piper, but paying the piper. It’s about not always being able to distinguish the Pied Piper

from the rats. It’s about the financial cost of getting published, which is exceeded only by the

cost, financial and otherwise, of not getting published.

From what I’ve observed, most literary Wannabes decide to be writers. Writing fills a hole in

their lives. They leave school, they lose their jobs, they divorce their spouses, their children leave

home, they retire. Some use writing as a form of therapy or recovery. (Step 9: apologize to those

you’ve harmed through your addiction. Step 10: write The Man with the Golden Arm.) The

closest most come to a sense of vocation is a vague but persistent feeling that they have at least

one novel rattling around inside them. Doesn’t everyone?

There’s a story about the writing of Joseph Conrad’s first novel. In his forties, retired from the

British Merchant Marine, Conrad simply sat down after breakfast one morning in the early 1890s

and started Almayer’s Folly. He’d had no previous intention of doing so. Whatever process

brought him to that point had been entirely unconscious.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 155

If this story isn’t true, it ought to be. Becoming a novelist is an act of spontaneous

combustion. Either that or it’s aberrant behavior—a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

What it’s not is a straightforward decision, like applying to law school or becoming a bartender.

One may want to be a writer, but one doesn’t decide to be a writer. Something just happens,

perhaps the oxidant of observation or perception reacting with memory. I’d suggest that anyone

who decides to be a novelist as opposed to, say, a doctor or a computer programmer or a fashion

designer, isn’t really a novelist at all.

That much, I’m sure, is true of vast numbers of novelist Wannabes. Maybe the most accurate

generalization is to state that they write fiction to create a life for themselves rather than to

express their sense of what life is. They imagine themselves a writer and mistake it for

imagination. They believe that the act of writing makes them a writer. (Based on 13 Ways of

Looking at the Novel, the novelist Jane Smiley appears to believe this too. Surprise! Not

everyone agrees with me.)

Here’s the dirty little secret, the elephant in the romper room of Wannabeland: the stuff most

Wannabes write is crap. Now, a great many published, even successful, authors write crap, so

why should most Wannabes remain Wannabes for doing the same thing? The answer is that what

most Wannabes write is pathetic crap—either the endless drivel that is the literary equivalent of

the runs, involving not the slightest contraction or control of the artistic sphincter, or the all but

petrified pellets that stretch the same muscle to agonizing extremes, leaving the writer straining,

red-faced, and exhausted.

Writing fiction is not a skill, but a talent. (The same probably applies to writing a business

letter, though there’s more room for argument.) When crap is published—on its own merits, so to

speak, as opposed to factors such as an author famous for some other endeavor (Ethan Hawke,

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 156

Jimmy Carter, Newt Gingrich) or the fix being in (your dad’s golfing partner is named Farrar,

Straus, or Giroux)—it’s because the author has a talent for writing crap. For that reason, I’ve

often thought that “Dan Brown” is a clever pen name. “Renowned curator Jacques Sauniere

staggered through the archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery.” That’s crap, boys and girls, but

world-class crap, The Da Vinci Code’s opening sentence—a big, solid, healthy turd, launched by

the peristaltic first word, the two prepositional phrases sliding smoothly behind the single,

propulsive verb and neatly pinching the loaf.

It sounds like I’m suggesting that all published crap is “good” crap, or at least that it doesn’t

smell as badly as unpublished crap. Though either of those contentions may or may not be true in

any particular case, I think they’re irrelevant. In my lifetime, no novelist has produced a

spectacular piece of crap like Peyton Place or Valley of the Dolls or The Carpetbaggers, The Da

Vinci Code or I am Charlotte Simmons without a profound talent for doing so. Jacqueline Susann

didn’t have a successful career because she was a bad writer, but because she had a talent that

trumped her badness. The talent lay not in literary skill or a fecund imagination, in mastery or

manipulation of the marketplace, or even in a pleasant mix of sex and drugs, but in a gifted

triangulation of sleaze, celebrity, and simplicity. That the films of director Ed Wood, bad as they

are, still attract interest and discussion demonstrates that the director had a talent for making crap

that transcends the judgments good or bad. In the words of the Wise Hack of the writers’ table in

the M-G-M commissary, quoted by Gore Vidal, “Shit has its own integrity.”

But let’s take this notion of crap and play with it for a moment. (Sorry if this is starting to

sound Freudian.) Though Ed Wood had a talent for making bad movies, no one was ever going

to teach him to make a good one. Similarly, Jacqueline Susann had a gift of simple presentation

that Hemingway might have admired, but she was never going to be Hemingway. Neither is the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 157

contemporary thriller writer, Lee Child, whose gift is to marry an oversimplification of the

Hemingway style and code that borders on parody to the violent conventions of the spaghetti

western. Jack Reacher is Nick Adams on steroids, Clint Eastwood with a name (which I suppose

makes him Dirty Harry). No clean kills, no grace under pressure, just a body count and a separate

piece in whatever town Reacher wanders into in each new book.

To insist that the writing of fiction is a talent rather than a skill is not to maintain that skill

plays no part in the writing. Skill is the sum of talent plus experience, more and more in evidence

as a career proceeds and novel succeeds novel. Skill cannot replace talent or guarantee success

any more than teaching a musician to play the piano proficiently guarantees that the musician

will ever appear professionally at Carnegie Hall.

Unlike the other arts, the writing of fiction does not rely on a complementary relationship

between talent and skill. More often than not, in those other arts, talent manifests itself fairly

early as a natural inclination or affinity, which needs to be developed, directed, and honed. It is

not unlike the development of a professional athlete. A novice baseball player wouldn’t report to

spring training for a Major League team expecting to make the team. But, in analogous terms,

that is exactly what the Wannabe novelist thinks. To write professionally, the assumption goes,

the only required talent is to have lived. That requirement feeds two perceptions about becoming

a writer that both explain and sustain the Wannabe hoard: it takes time and it’s never too late.

Wannabeland fosters these notions by insisting that skill can be acquired at spring training

and insinuating that the amateur has a legitimate chance of making the Major League team.

(Even Michael Jordan, supremely gifted in another sport, didn’t try that, though Tom Wolfe

published The Bonfire of the Vanities—arguably, the most overrated novel of the last several

decades.) This assumption has, however, two serious flaws. First, the Major League roster has

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 158

only twenty-five places on it. Less obvious, but no less important, is the disjunction between skill

and talent.

Though skill can’t replace talent, it can enhance it. So can teaching. Both observations apply

to the writing of fiction. But Wannabeland asserts that being taught the skill and applying it will

all but ensure success, because experience and talent, as defined above, are a given. All you have

to do is read the textbook or show up for class or both.

This means, however, that the ratio of Wannabes to the twenty-five places on the Major

League roster is so high as to be way out of whack. The real number of available places is even

less, because the team has a core of returning veterans. Nevertheless, all of the Wannabes believe

that they have the same claim on the manager and coaches. That the Wannabes may not all look

like ballplayers has been cleverly disguised, because they’re all wearing the same uniform and

they’ve all been taught THE RULES of the game. The manager and coaches have to distinguish

not between a select few who have been invited to spring training on the basis of talent and skill

and can be judged in comparison to each other and the veteran members of the team, but with a

multitude so vast that individual features blur. Those in charge become not only overwhelmed

with fatigue, but jaded by the whole process except as it allows them to exercise power over the

powerless.

Under these conditions, who among the Wannabe horde makes the team? Only those who fill

a specific perceived need—shortstops don’t win pennants, pitchers do; fans want to see a

homerun derby, not a pitchers’ duel. Only those whose pitching motion or batting stance looks

exactly like it’s supposed to look. Only those who won’t bring down the wrath of the owners on

management because while they may not succeed spectacularly, they probably won’t fail

spectacularly either. And you can always trade ‘em later.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 159

That’s just woolly thinking, and not only because the selection process becomes at once

arbitrary and overly cautious. And, though Major League baseball doesn’t work that way,

Literary Wannabeland does. But despite the cliché, everyone of a certain age doesn’t have a

novel in them. No amount of living, no amount of instruction in the difference between Story and

Plot or the nuances of point of view, can replace the imaginative element essential to the

successful novelist—even if the published product is crap.

Another way of looking at literary crap successfully purveyed is to suggest that imagination

may compensate for undistinguished, repetitive prose or that it may manifest itself in extra-

literary ways—inventive or kinky sex, for example, or the roman a clef set in Washington or

Hollywood. Take a look at Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent, a major mid-20th-century best-

seller and Pulitzer Prize winner. All but unreadable, then as now, it contains unmistakable

fictional portraits of FDR, Jack Kennedy, Joe McCarthy, and Alger Hiss. Mix Hollywood and

sex, and you have Harold Robbins or Jackie Collins.

Good or successful fiction or both isn’t the product of showing, not telling or of starting close

to the action or of murdering your darlings. It isn’t even dependent, necessarily, on writing what

you know. Does a male novelist writing from the point of view of a woman nine months pregnant

know what it feels like to give birth? Yet that novelist may effectively and with great empathy

depict the experience by imagining, as a starting point, what it might be like to shit a

watermelon. That’s talent!

And, once again, it can’t be taught. No amount of teaching will make an untalented writer

talented. Knowing and executing all the steps of a dance doesn’t make the dancer Fred Astaire or

Cyd Charisse. A talented writer may benefit from a good teacher. A capable, consistently

diligent editor is, however, a better investment. One could stipulate that a good editor is a

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 160

teacher, with a single significant difference. Editing, like physical therapy, involves multiple

sessions, but sooner or later ends with (one hopes) a healthy book. Teaching, like psychotherapy,

never ends. Obviously, some editing is like that too.

Wannabeland ignores the importance of talent because it’s bad for business. No Howtu book

ever says stop writing in response to repeated, scathing rejection; no writing teacher ever

suggests you drop out of your M.F.A. program and invest your tuition refund in a high octane

mutual fund; no workshop guru ever discourages you from taking the next workshop—the one

that focuses on point of view rather than plot and precedes the one on character development.

Why is it these elements can never be discussed together?

Most Wannabes buy the first Howtu write book, its promises being almost impossible to

resist, but only those who write pathetic crap buy the fifth one. Only desperation blinds them to

the fact that the fifth book is exactly like the first. And so is the tenth. (Don’t ask how I know.)

Strip away the personal history and anecdotes, the recommendations about the writer’s “tools,”

the observations on “the life of a writer,” the exercises in character development and scene

construction, and they all leave the would-be novelist stranded in the same place, that “room of

one’s own” that is neither a room nor one’s own. Wake up and change your underwear. You’ve

fallen asleep in Literary Wannabeland and had a wet dream.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 161

Chapter 17

Spanking the Monkey

How did I learn that creative writing cannot be taught? In a writing class, of course.

More specifically, in a writing workshop. A workshop differs from a writing class in

generally being of shorter duration and not necessarily unaffiliated with an educational

institution, therefore not leading to any degree. Ostensibly, there’s no grade either.

Being privately run for the most part, they’re more expensive than degree-based or extension

courses. Way more expensive. I paid $2100 for seven weeks in 2003, one session per week.

For reasons I hope this book has made clear, publication for most first-time novelists is about

the marketplace, therefore about the first novel’s commercial prospects. (As if it had any.)

Teaching writing, however, is about literary fiction. Classes are conducted entirely in Ukrainian.

This isn’t surprising, because workshops are not really about publishing fiction. Surprise!

They’re about learning to speak Ukrainian, so that you can take more workshops. With the same

teacher, of course, meaning that the attendee must not only learn Ukrainian, but the particular

Ukrainian dialect that the teacher speaks.

The writing workshop is, however, only incidentally about the work. It’s about the other

students in the workshop, and it’s about the teacher. Especially the teacher. Or, in my case, the

two teachers.

Carla Eumenides and Theo Beck were—and, for all I know or care, still are—husband and

wife. For more than a few reasons, I’ll refer to them in the past tense. Carla was a tall, leggy

redhead in her middle to late thirties and had been in the creative writing program at Stanford.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 162

She had published one novel—about three generations of twentieth-century Greek immigrant

women coping with and overcoming many decades and varieties of mistreatment. Theo was

perhaps ten years older, shorter, and bearded, a critic and short story writer who’d once

collaborated with a far more celebrated American writer of short stories on an anthology of

American short stories. Presumably, it was this anthology rather than the immigrant first novel

that had paid for the Painted Lady in Lower Pacific Heights and the black, late-model SUV that

looked like a helicopter gunship.

As an American literary Mecca, San Francisco has a cachet second only to New York,

narrowly edging out Boston, which loses as much as it gains by a perpetual cultural dissonance

between bluestocking and blue collar. In San Francisco, on the other hand, distinctions between

highbrow and lowbrow, mainstream and avant-garde, serious and commercial, though palpable

and scarcely insignificant, matter less than simply being a member of the literary club. The

culture is bilingual; both English and Ukrainian are commonly spoken. It doesn’t really matter if

you’re Armistead Maupin or Danielle Steele, as long as everyone knows your name. It is a

culture of celebrity—understandably, being in the same state as the cradle of celebrity.

If everyone doesn’t know your name, it’s essential to be on a first-name basis with those who

matter. Or to suggest that one is. That was the case with Carla and Theo, whose conversation was

larded with references to Toby (Wolff), Marty (Cruz Smith) and Larry (Ferlinghetti). The odd

thing was that this namedropping seemed directed less at the class than at each other, as if the

rest of us were watching a regular, and therefore increasingly tedious, session of mutual

masturbation. Indeed, my impression of Carla, who seemed the alpha dog, was that despite being

married and having borne two children, her most intimate and satisfying relationship was with

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 163

herself. (Or, perhaps, she was just a novelist.) In any case, the people who run such private

workshops are marginal to the literary scene or they wouldn’t be running them.

Surprisingly, given the price of the workshop, the participants included young students as

well as older ones; there were body piercings and tattoos as well as paunches and cellulite and

purple hair as well as gray; there were boomers and slackers, New Agers and aging flower

children (from Berkeley); there were vegans and chain smokers, druggies and drunkards, a

recovering poet, a militant feminist (Berkeley again) and way too many desperate housewives. In

short, the participants were a microcosm of literary Wannabes, racially, culturally, sexually, and

generationally diverse, all loaded with emotional baggage and subject to varying degrees of

weirdness, envy, paranoia, defensiveness, and delusions of grandeur. All shared not the same, or

even approximate, level of talent or skill or writing experience, but an obsessive, craven, fawning

desire for praise—or, more charitably, validation. A significant feature of the workshop was a

collective capacity for self-abasement in the pursuit of this object. Most of the students brought

the same soul-sucking fear into the classroom—the all but certain knowledge that they weren’t

good enough. And the same irrational hope—that they were wrong. (This, of course, gives the

instructor absolute power, which he or she displays no scruples about using and abusing.)

The only exception I’m certain of is—myself. No doubt this seems another helping of

colossal conceit or self-delusion or both, but I didn’t take the workshop to confirm that I was

good enough. I already knew I was good enough to publish. Regardless of whether I ever

published, I already knew I could write. For good and for ill, the two have nothing to do with

each other. I took the workshop because I hoped to meet someone—oh, I dunno, the instructors?

—who might help me find an agent or publisher.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 164

This would happen because these enablers would also discover that I could write and that I

was publishable. I was also the only participant in that workshop—or, I suspect, in most such

groups—with an already completed, polished novel. My motives may have been self-serving, but

at least they were logical. And, lest anyone forget, I was paying.

But what, exactly, was I paying for? Ay, there was the rub. Personalities and classroom

dynamics aside, I discovered a number of impediments to my goal.

Workshops, even those dealing with “the novel,” focus on short fiction. This practice makes a

virtue of necessity. For the sake of argument, let’s define a novel as any work of fiction over one

hundred fifty pages long (about 45,000 words). Let’s also call anything between fifty and one

hundred fifty pages a novella. Anything shorter is a short story. Now a good way of reducing the

number of Wannabe novelists, or at least keeping them out of workshops devoted to “the novel,”

would be to make a full-length draft of a novel a prerequisite for such a workshop. Otherwise,

ninety percent of the participants in the workshop will never produce what the instruction is

ostensibly designed to produce.

So one way of defining a—how shall I put it?—viable novelist is that he or she has actually

written a complete novel. Not an opening, not a scene, not a chapter, not a sequence of chapters,

but the whole enchilada. To repeat, one either can or can’t write a novel. No one is going to teach

those who can’t to do it. But improve what already exists—maybe.

Such a prerequisite would eliminate much of the overpopulation problem in Wannabeland.

Still, the “curriculum” issue goes beyond it. Most of the classroom time involves students

reading their work and others commenting on it, a practice fraught with peril for all concerned.

The listeners listen to the reader’s work only to see if it might be better than their own. Beyond

that primal, ungovernable fear, they haven’t the slightest interest. As for the instructor, he or she

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 165

has a more complicated agenda, an axe to grind. A more charitable phrase for this imperative

might be the phrase “grow the business.”

The workshop entrepreneurs have a number of tactics designed to achieve this goal. Most

obviously, they compartmentalize their instruction. They treat plot, point of view, and

characterization, for example, as completely separate entities and emphasize them in different

workshops. And each workshop is priced separately—no package deals. If, over one or more

workshops, they encounter a promising student with enough disposable income, and this student

makes sufficient progress on his or her fiction, they may reward that student with intensive, one-

on-one sessions. For an additional price. Per session.

The problem is that few if any students will make the necessary progress. But just as few will

give up, and no instructor will ever tell them they ought to. So the workshop process, like the

editing process, becomes open-ended and ever more expensive.

The “business model” is complemented by a “literary model.” The latter involves not only the

teaching of creative writing, but a particular theory of what creative writing should be. A novel is

one thing and one thing only. This is but another version of THE RULES. In an additional turn

of the screw, the theory happens to reflect the time constraints of the workshop.

Hence, a few of THE RULES promulgated by Carla and Theo:

1) Good novels are short novels. They adhere to the Aristotelian unities as enunciated in the

Poetics and the poetic ideal of compression. (The Poetics was the secondary text of the

workshop, the primary one being the short story anthology Theo edited with the far more

acclaimed, now defunct, writer of short stories. Not incidentally, this choice of text also

improves the bottom line.)

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 166

So novels aren’t really novels. They’re a combination of the short story, the drama, and

the lyric poem.

2) If you must use novels as a model for novel-writing, study those of Penelope Fitzgerald.

In particular, Offshore (140 pages) is “the perfect novel.”

The whole point of the Great American Novel, if not of some English equivalent, is that

no one’s ever written it (except, of course, Philip Roth—a classic example of the

exception that proves the rule).

3) A scene should be no more than two pages long. Not one, not three, not more than three

(oh, the horror! the horror!) but two.

4) The reader must be able to see the end in the beginning. Oh, that again. Question: if the

end is in the beginning, why bother to read the novel?

5) A novel should summarize itself on every page. What the fuck? I still don’t know.

These notions would be nothing more than utter, stupid nonsense if one weren’t paying a lot

of money to hear them. But putting aside even that consideration, they have a profound effect on

the substance of a workshop devoted to “the novel.” In a classroom situation constrained by time

and defined by both the instructor’s agenda and the students’ lack of involvement in one

another’s work, emphasis will inevitably fall on the first chapter. Any discussion beyond that

will just as inevitably focus on individual scenes. Nothing will be said about structure or

narrative arc or time. Only lip service will be paid to plot. Besides the fact that those who haven’t

completed some substantial portion of a novel have little interest in these things, the substance

and methodology of the workshop fragment an object—the novel—whose essence is wholeness.

The only person who cares, however, is the occasional individual who comes to the table with

a whole novel, one that is good enough to make hope of publishing it not too delusional an

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 167

aspiration. Most of the other participants in the workshop will never get that far—in a sense,

they’re just jerking off too—and the instructors are out to make a buck.

This is but another way of saying that the problem wasn’t them—it was me. Later, when I

reached the tipping point with Lenore, one of the things I realized both elaborated upon and

clarified my experience in the workshop: I already spoke Ukrainian. That had been the difficulty

throughout my experience in Wannabeland. I wasn’t really a Wannabe. By temperament,

training, and experience, I had spoken Ukrainian long before I ever wandered down the rabbit

hole. The end in the beginning.

How, then, can I feel entitled to generalize from my particular experience? Well, it occurred.

And, as with Lenore Raven, it was consistent with everything else I’ve observed about

Wannabeland. How else do we arrive at judgments about how the world, or some particular

corner of it, operates?

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 168

Chapter 18

The Marketing Tool Kit: Big Lies and a Little Secret

Those books that focus on tools ancillary to the writing and editing process, or the sections of

the Howtu-write books that focus on these tools, purport to solve the problem of cracking the

marketplace once a first novel is written—even if it is literary fiction. For various reasons, none

of them too mysterious, it takes longer than you might think for the Wannabe to recognize the

sleight of hand being perpetrated. After insisting on the inestimable value and effectiveness of

the tools, the writers tell the Wannabe what to do when they don’t work. As if, sometimes and

quite understandably, they don’t work.

But guess what? They almost never work, because matters seldom progress, in any

meaningful or productive fashion, beyond the query letter stage. And when they do, hurdles and

pitfalls a-plenty still await the Wannabe.

Let’s look at the tools as if the whole process of applying them occurred in a sane, sequential

pattern, like the laying of building blocks. These tools owe their existence to an ingenious people

known collectively as:

The Howtu Tribe

Theory: The tribe’s scouts and guides, chieftains, shamans, and warriors, guide the first

novelist confidently, if slowly, to the Happy Hunting Grounds of publication. Either individually

or in concert, the Howtu equip the novelist for the journey. Howtu fall into several broad but

useful categories: how to write the novel, how to write a query letter, how to find an agent, an

editor, or a publisher; how to negotiate a sale (Yeah, sure!).

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 169

Fact: Yet again—no book or other writing publication can teach someone how to write.

Because of the little secret that I will divulge at the end of this chapter, they don’t really teach the

Wannabe with a marketable manuscript how to achieve publication. The Howtu don’t protect the

novelist from the enemy; they don’t fight the enemy, bribe, conciliate, or negotiate with the

enemy. They are the enemy.

I’ll list and comment upon various items in the tool kit, which includes not only query letters

to literary agents and publishers, but sample chapters, synopses, and outlines, networking and

literary conferencing, writing competitions and physical assaults on the bastions of publishing

(“Sell everything and move to New York.”). Inevitably, however, I’m going to spend the most

time on the query letter. (I said everything I wanted to say about literary conferences in the

Prologue. As to competitions, I feel the same way about them as George C. Scott did the Oscars.)

In addition to being the crucial and most practical point of contact between the unpublished

writer and those who control access to the market place, the ethos (or mythos) surrounding

queries amply illustrates the false promises and real shortcomings of the other tools as well.

Querying: The Formula

Theory: A brief description of one’s novel in a letter of inquiry may pique an agent’s or an

acquisitions editor’s interest enough for that person to request one or more sample chapters or an

outline or synopsis or even—omigod! . . . the entire manuscript.

Fact: An agent or acquisitions editor isn’t going to read the query. A young, crypto-Wannabe

employed by the agent or editor is going to read it. Maybe. This is like putting the power of the

death penalty in the hands of a conservative judge’s first-year law clerk.

Theory: A query letter is no less primary or essential to getting a read than a resume is to

securing a job interview in the business world.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 170

Fact: Query letters do serve the same function as resumes. But take it from one who knows:

resumes are seldom used to hire people. They are used to eliminate people from the hiring

process. In business, most hiring managers prefer a referral, because it means they don’t have to

read a stack of resumes. And if the new employee doesn’t work out, the hiring manager can

blame someone else for the hire.

Theory: A query letter better be good. It’s the best, if not only, shot the unpublished novelist

has at actually getting something read.

Fact: A query letter may have to be several things, but good isn’t one of them. Rather, it has

to be sexy. Its two essential characteristics must be brevity and surprise. This combination results

in good only if one’s idea of good sex involves an odd coupling preceded by little or no foreplay.

The reader of the query wants to hear something he or she doesn’t expect to hear. Not “I’m

coming” or even “Tell me when I can come,” but something that leads easily to simultaneous

orgasm. Two things make this impossible. (I could remark that a good query letter is as mythical

as simultaneous orgasm, but I ain’t going there.) First, the reader of the query has heard it all.

Second, in fiction, there is nothing new under the sun. The two are not unrelated, but they’re not

exactly the same either.

The first is simply and inevitably a function of the Wannabe business. The sheer volume of

query letters will soon inure even the most callow apprentice reader assigned to them to any

blandishments they might contain. The second derives from the nature of storytelling itself.

I’m hardly the first person to point this out, but examine any story or plot, name any genre,

that doesn’t employ one or more of a very few archetypal elements: initiation, transformation,

quest, discovery, redemption, or revenge. Frankenstein, Now, Voyager, My Fair Lady, and A

Christmas Carol all tell a story of transformation, as do War and Peace, Dr. Zhivago, and Gone

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 171

with the Wind. Scale, scope, and treatment differ, not the essential arc or effect of the action.

Oedipus Rex is as much a detective story as any police procedural, both involving a person in

authority trying to discover the truth. A quest is a quest is a quest, be it for the Holy Grail, the

Celestial City, or Shangri-la, for love, gold, glory, home, or freedom. As I suggested in chapter

five, plot involves two simple things in addition to the causality posited by E.M. Forster: the

passage of time and a journey, the latter literal or metaphoric or both.

But the query letter must insist that there is something new under the sun. Why else would

anyone with the power to enable publication of the work of an unpublished novelist be willing to

do so? Well, that someone might read all or part of a writer’s novel and like it. That simple. But

the fundamental problem with a query is that it isn’t the work. It’s a pitch to read the work, vying

with an vast horde of other pitches. As such, it doesn’t put on display the one thing that may be

new under the sun—the writer’s treatment of familiar material (and, to repeat: there is no other

kind. Or, as they say in Hollywood, there are only twelve stories, right, babe?). It only declares,

you’ll like my book because it’s different. Oops! There it is again—telling, not showing.

Nor can the book be too different. This is where the odd coupling ensues—the stipulation of

something new by the evocation of something familiar. The only way of making the old new is

to yoke together two different but familiar things—as in the formula X meets Y—a juxtaposition

that arouses the reader’s attention. Not War and Peace meets Dr. Zhivago, but War and Peace

meets Wuthering Heights—the battle of Borodino enacted on the Yorkshire moors. Can’t miss,

babe! And the not so subtle bit of legerdemain being practiced is the inference that what is being

presented is not only new, but—based on its pedigree—sure to be successful. The query letter

must make an irresistible, if illogical, pitch—an unusual, exciting coupling and safe sex.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 172

And a pitch is exactly what it is. Hardly by accident, it resembles a screenwriter’s two

minutes with a producer (or an aspiring novelist’s time with an agent or editor at a writing

conference). It must not only telegraph the plot, but do so in a language the reader understands, a

particular dialect or patois indicative of the outsider’s inside knowledge (try dealing with that

contradiction) of what is really going on. (“Hey, there’s only twelve stories, right?”) What is

really going on, as in consideration of a business resume, is risk mitigation.

A battle-scarred soldier makes a separate peace and heads for home. Could be A Farewell to

Arms meets The Best Years of Our Lives. But it’s not. That’s a combination past its prime. If it’s

sexy at all, it’s sex after menopause. So it’s Troy meets Cold Mountain. But wait. Troy meets

Cold Mountain isn’t new; it’s The Iliad meets The Odyssey. Both of which are really, really old.

Geriatric sex. Yecch!

As I mentioned in an earlier chapter, my particular formulation was “Woody Allen meets

Harper Lee.” With it I intended to convey four things: 1) an essentially comic coming-of-age

story 2) set in the South 3) focusing on Jewish characters 4) narrated retrospectively in the first-

person. My particular ploy was to broaden the playing field to include authors rather than single

works. Not, however, to suggest a many-to-many relationship but a many-to-one. Harper Lee has

only a single novel to her credit, but what a novel! I understood that well enough, but failed to

recognize all of the implications.

For one thing, maybe someone would take me literally and think my book was a non-fiction

novel about Truman Capote’s Black-and-White Masked Ball in Manhattan in 1966. Okay,

probably not—but not all that farfetched a possibility considering that my own editor mentioned

Andy’s reference to the Clutter family as a likely source of reader confusion, and hadn’t Harper

Lee had been involved in that business too?

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 173

But first things first. I was imagining the typical query reader as one with a sense of

geography expansive enough to include both Texas and Woody Allen in the Deep South.

My standard response as to Texas is, “It seceded in 1861, didn’t it?” With Woody Allen,

however, much as I admire his work, I wasn’t doing myself any favors. Never mind the

incongruity of Woody Allen and Texas. (Woody in a ten-gallon hat is wooden all right, as in

Howdy Doody.) At first I failed to understand that “Jewish” was incidental to the impression a

reference to him would create. So was “comic writer,” “screenwriter,” “film director,” “New

York filmmaker,” or even “poet laureate of Manhattan” (cue the Gershwin). Everyone associates

Woody Allen, even his considerable body of prose not only with comedy, but with the one-liner.

And, in this context, not even Allen the writer, but Allen the performer. As both, Woody Allen

descends not from Oscar Wilde or Mark Twain, but Bob Hope. I was possibly conveying that the

principal characters of my novel were Jewish, but I was certainly suggesting that the novel was a

series of jokes. For a novel to be a series of jokes is as bad as for it to be a joke. Almost.

Why not Philip Roth meets Harper Lee? The master of transforming and sustaining Jewish

jokes as literary comedy. Plus, no problem with the Black-and-White Ball. What did Woody

Allen buy me that Philip Roth couldn’t?

It was more what Roth would buy me. I could clearly identify my novel as Jewish-American

fiction. But Philip Roth meets Harper Lee meant Alexander Portnoy meets not Mary Jane Reed,

but Jean Louise Finch. I really didn’t need that monkey on my back.

Did I even need to imply, let alone mention, that the main characters were Jewish? Not

necessarily. Part of the problem with my particular formulation was that it placed Jews in the

wrong region. Jews belong in the northeast and in Hollywood, not the South. This has nothing to

do with reality—with, for instance, the Jewish storekeeper who sold sheets to the local Klan in

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 174

Harper Lee’s own Monroeville, Alabama—and everything to do with stereotypical cultural

perception. But wait! That meant Jews in the South were a story as yet untold in American

fiction, so—whaddaya know!—I had found something new under the sun. Question was, how

was I going to make that clear in my query formulation? (Suggestion in passing: popular fiction

depends not only on genre, but on cultural and literary stereotypes; literary fiction busts these as

well as genres. Stephen Carter, for example, receives much credit for “discovering” the black

middle class in his mysteries, but gets little credit as a mystery writer.)

Woody still seemed the best bet, and I stuck with him. More than anything, I gradually came

to realize, I was trying to finesse the issue of literary fiction. Or, rather, I was trying to remind

the query reader that a work of literary fiction could also be successful commercially. But was

that the reader’s impression? What was I really pitching? A novel called To Kvell a

Mockingbird? Or Say it Again, Atticus (with Clarence Darrow as the imaginary Bogart/advisor

figure)? Maycomb Murder Mystery? (Atticus proves Tom Robinson’s innocence as much by

Miss Maudie’s industrious amateur sleuthing as by his own courtroom skills.) How did it begin?

“There’s a story originally attributed to Sigmund Freud, or Uncle Remus”? Did psychoanalysis

reveal that Scout suffered from penis envy? Did Dill grow up to be Tony Roberts?

Why not just say exactly what I meant? “Not Fade Away is a comic coming-of-age story set

in southeast Texas in 1959 and focusing on Jewish characters.” Believe me, I did. There were no

takers. Because that sentence contains absolutely nothing to entice an agent or editor, not even

when I added, “With Buddy Holly providing the musical accompaniment, young Andy Lerner

experiences a summer of love and loss, defeat and triumph, that forever changes his life.” It is

not a template for querying, but something for the one-in-a-thousand or one-in-ten-thousand

agent who would, for reasons no one could know, be interested in just exactly that. After all, that

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 175

is what happened to Nelle Harper Lee herself. One biographer even speculates that her literary

agent, Maurice Crain, felt an immediate affinity for her because his mother was called Nellie.

Harper Lee: A Perfect Storm in Wannabeland

Be that as it may, these many years after To Kill a Mockingbird was published and became an

instant classic, it is clear that for its author the book created a perfect storm of success for Harper

Lee. Consider the timeline:

1. 1949 – HL drops out of law school and moves to New York; begins to write short stories

in her spare time. This catalytic event sounds like a version of the Howtu advice, “Sell

everything and move to New York.” It enabled Harper Lee to meet successful Broadway

composer Michael Brown and his wife, Joy.

2. 1956 - Michael Brown provides connection to theatrical agent Annie Laurie Williams and

encourages HL to present her short stories to her. Six years have passed, a significant but

not extraordinary, literary apprenticeship.

3. A check (Christmas gift) from the Browns in 1956 finances year to write full time.

Hummh! That sort of thing happens to unpublished writers all the time.

4. Early 1957 - Annie Laurie Williams’ husband, Maurice Crain, her partner in charge of

literary properties takes an interest in HL; says stories need work and that short stories

are a hard sell anyway, but encourages her to write a novel.

5. May 1957 - Crain sends early, unsolicited version of To Kill a Mockingbird (called

Atticus) to J.P. Lippincott publishers. HL meets with Lippincott editors, who urge

revision to tie anecdotal narrative together.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 176

6. End of summer, 1957 – HL resubmits manuscript. One of the Lippincott editors, Teresa

Hohoff, who likes working with young writers, volunteers to work with her further on the

book. An editor volunteers? That happens a lot too.

7. October, 1957 – Lippincott offers HL contract an advance of several thousand dollars.

Writer and editor work to shape narrative anecdotes into a novel with a cohesive structure

and through line, the arrest, trial, and death of Tom Robinson.

8. 1957-60 – whether or not HL based the Tom Robinson story on the Scottsboro Boys’

trials of her girlhood, the development of her central plot line coincided with the

burgeoning Civil Rights movement.

9. December, 1959 – Lee accompanies her cousin, Truman Capote, to Kansas to assist with

research for In Cold Blood. How likely is it that she and “Dill” talked only about

Capote’s book? In any case, Capote would spread word about TKAM prior to publication.

10. July, 1960 – TKAM published; selected by Literary Guild and Reader’s Digest

Condensed Books; hits New York Times and Chicago Tribune bestseller lists within a few

weeks. (Coincidentally, Freedom Ride from Washington, D.C. to New Orleans began on

May 17, 1960.)

11. January, 1961 – film rights sold.

12. May, 1961 – TKAM wins Pulitzer Prize.

13. 1962 – film version released and acclaimed; Oscar to Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. I’ve

already noted the rarity of a classic film based on a classic novel. It is impossible to

overestimate the effect of the movie’s success and Peck’s iconic portrayal on the book’s

secure status as a classic.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 177

The timeline consumes only about a dozen years, not a long time in the life of a young writer

who for seven of those years had a day job to occupy her. And, in contrast to the plight of most

Wannabes, these years were filled with support, encouragement, and validation from a host of

significant enablers. So Harper Lee’s experience is not an affirmation of the “sell everything and

move to New York” principle. It is, rather, the incandescently glaring exception that proves the

opposite. Though the publishing of fiction has changed and contracted in the last fifty years,

Lee’s run of luck and good timing was unique even in its time. About as many Wannabe

novelists are going to succeed by trying hard in New York (or anywhere else) as aspiring actors

are going to find steady work, let alone meteoric fame, in Hollywood (or anywhere else).

I draw other conclusions, or at least inferences, from Harper Lee’s experience, and these will

serve as well to comment on other items in the tool kit for Wannabes. Let’s notice, for example,

that what’s missing from this picture is not only the all-important query letter, but also:

The Sample Chapter(s)

Theory: One or more sample chapters may induce the agent’s or publisher’s reader to request

more chapters or even the whole manuscript. Such samples prime the pump.

Fact: An agent’s or publisher’s reader will NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! read a sample

chapter submitted with a query letter. From my experience, this is true even if some guide or

listing of agents tells you the agent or publisher accepts unsolicited sample chapters. The only

exception MIGHT be if the recipient’s eye, entirely by accident and despite his or her best efforts

to look away, falls on the first sentence and that sentence happens to begin, “In my younger and

more vulnerable years . . .” or “It is a truth universally acknowledged . . .” Otherwise, on the

basis of the query letter, an agent or publisher MAY request one or more sample chapters and

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 178

MAY even read one or more of them before sending you a rejection. (Note: The short stories

Harper Lee submitted to Maurice Crain do not qualify as sample “chapters.” There was no novel

at that point.)

The Synopsis

Theory: A synopsis tell agents, editors, and, occasionally, the judges of writing competitions,

what happens in the parts of a novel they don’t see, which is most of it. It’s the part of the

iceberg under the tip of the sample chapters.

Fact: I suspect a synopsis from a first novelist has about as much visibility as the submerged

part of an iceberg.

To pursue the analogy that began with the comparison of a query letter to a movie pitch, the

synopsis resembles a screenwriter’s initial “treatment” of a script. As an average script runs

about one hundred twenty pages (one page of script equals one minute of screen time), a

treatment is a summary or blueprint of the planned script anywhere from, say, ten to thirty pages

long. Its elements include story structure and narrative, sample dialogue, primary and secondary

characters, perhaps all or part of key scenes, and whatever else may flesh out the detail of the

initial pitch and drive the writing of a usable script. In effect, because a screenplay is itself a

blueprint for the film (see chapter 19), a treatment is a blueprint for a blueprint.

There is nothing wrong with such a step in the development of a screenplay. But a screenplay

ain’t the same animal as a novel (also see chapter 19), so the question becomes whether the

synopsis of a novel achieves any purpose. Well, it would if it led to a read. As in, an agent or

editor is intrigued enough to request sample chapters and/or the full manuscript. Even in this best

case (i.e., unlikely) situation, there are a couple of potential, even likely, traps.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 179

First, an agent or editor who requests manuscript pages based on a synopsis as opposed to

only a query is almost certainly interested primarily in the novel’s plot. If plot is the novel’s

strong point, a synopsis can convey that as well as anything. But if plot is the driving factor, then

the novel is almost certainly genre fiction. Because literary fiction (almost by definition) isn’t

plot-driven, a synopsis is unlikely to do much service to the novel it purports to “summarize.” In

most cases, if a genre novel has a good query, a synopsis is at best icing on the cake.

For literary fiction, on the other hand, a synopsis is far from the best tool to secure a read. In

most instances it will fail to convey with any adequacy those elements—theme, language,

psychological insight, depth and subtlety of character development—that may make the work

distinctive. Here again the comparison to a film treatment is apt. Given the nature of film

narrative, the narrative blueprint necessarily emphasizes story—and, even more specifically,

action. This is the very thing literary fiction generally doesn’t emphasize. For such a work, a

synopsis is all risk and no reward (as was also my experience with synopses accompanying the

rigorously brief submissions to literary competitions).

Second, consider the possible sequencing where the tools are concerned. Even if a query is

effective, an agent isn’t going to request sample chapters and a synopsis, because then someone

might have to read both. (Remember: an agent will never read any unsolicited material.) Or, if

willing to consider both, which does he or she look at first? You can bet if the first choice

doesn’t grab the agent’s reader, no one in the office will look at the second. So the likelihood,

should matters somehow proceed this far, is that the agency will request sample chapters or a

synopsis. Assuming, of course, that the query wasn’t written in Ukrainian, the dread phrase

“literary fiction” will not have been uttered. Nevertheless, the agent will know because, if

nothing else, “X meets why” will reveal it. In the still more unlikely event of additional interest,

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 180

the agent will request sample chapters. Bottom line: for literary fiction seeking a read, synopses

are a non-starter.

The Outline

Our old friend from chapter 5, where I covered it pretty completely. Based on that earlier

discussion, a relevant question here is what’s the difference between an outline and a synopsis?

Whatever the former is, when does it become the latter? And the overriding question still

remains: what does the outline of a novel look like?

By and large, there is nothing personal in the general inefficacy of the ostensibly

indispensable tool kit. How could there be? Despite the aversion to risk that governs the

publishing industry, one thing especially ensures that most of the tools won’t work: a version of

the law of large numbers. So many literary Wannabes, so little time. Put it another way, what is

indeed missing throughout the whole process is the personal.

That is what Harper Lee had in abundance, and it is a crucial element in making her so huge

an exception. And the point person for the personal is, of course:

The Literary Agent

Theory: No one gets a first novel commercially published without an agent.

Fact: No one gets a first novel commercially published without an agent.

Unlike the other items listed above, agents have an indispensable purpose. For the

unconnected Wannabe, there is no other viable access to the mainstream publishing industry.

The odds of a submission “over the transom” to a publisher being read, let alone published,

approach the likelihood of winning a fifty-state Powerball lottery. The average Wannabe

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 181

therefore has three choices: 1) don’t publish 2) self-publish 3) find an agent. Needless to say, the

“dream” of publication, especially for a SERIOUS NOVELIST, involves only the third option.

Some aspects of finding an agent are a no-brainer. As in, don’t send literary fiction to an

agent who doesn’t handle it. As in, match any product to the agent; find one who can get excited

about that product and develop its commercial possibilities. (Tony Hillerman, author of the Jim

Chee/Joe Leaphorn Navajo mysteries, had a first agent who told him to “get rid of the Indian

stuff.”) As in, don’t sign a contract with an agent who charges a reading fee or a regular fee,

monthly or otherwise, to “represent” you. He or she will do nothing but take your money.

Believe me, I know. I learned the hard way.

Most of these warnings, however obvious, are moot. Anyone who acquires a reputable,

reliable agent may well be approaching the final lap of the publication marathon, but almost no

one does. As with the other items in the tool kit, and despite the myriad listings in guides to

literary agents, the numbers are stacked against the Wannabe.

And so, back to Harper Lee. Look at the timeline I provided above, and one clear fact

emerges from which one may generalize: Someone knows someone. That’s it. That’s the dirty

little secret to publication—dirty because it all but entirely obviates the quality issue. It doesn’t

really matter if it’s good. Maybe the author of a poor first novel won’t be able to publish a

second novel, but the first one will be published. There is a Michael Brown who has a

connection that sets everything in motion. To be sure, persistence,

coupled with sheer good luck in applying the “tools” may hook the first novelist up with the right

agent and also set the publication machine in motion, but what are the odds?

And in noting that Harper Lee apparently did not need the tool kit, it’s also important to

recognize what else is missing from the Harper Lee perfect storm of publication.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 182

Struggle

I don’t mean the struggle to write, which for most, if not all, authors is a given. I’m not

suggesting that To Kill a Mockingbird was any more or less easy to compose than any other

novel ranging on a broad continuum from, say, Nostromo or Finnegan’s Wake to any product of

the James Patterson or Nicholas Sparks novel factories. But two facts about Harper Lee’s writing

process seem indisputable. When Maurice Crain suggested she write a novel rather than short

stories, she quickly put together the draft of Atticus. And, of course, after To Kill a Mockingbird,

she never completed another novel. What’s interesting is that a Lee biographer, Charles J.

Shields, notes that after Atticus was submitted to Lippincott in the spring of 1957, “Nelle—not

wanting to waste a day of her writing sabbatical—surprised Crain at the end of May with 111

pages of a second novel, The Long Goodbye. Days later, he phoned her with good news;

Lippincott had requested to meet with her about Atticus. Her pen froze.”

And, in a sense, it never unfroze. The fact is, her struggle came after the success of her book

—the struggle not to achieve success, but to deal with it. Her decades of travail involved the

inability to produce, and therefore to publish, a second novel.

To an extraordinary extent, her situation represents a reversal of what normally besets a first

novelist. Some published first novelists do not produce a second novel, and most of those who do

achieve little or no greater success than with the first. In general, the novelist’s struggle is a slow

and uneven one to achieve a certain initial recognition, a readership however small, which may

form the vanguard of eventual fame or reputation, if not the deluge of celebrity and approbation

Harper Lee achieved immediately. To reprise the quote I included in chapter 1, “I never expected

any sort of success with 'Mockingbird.' I was hoping for a quick and merciful death at the hands

of the reviewers but, at the same time, I sort of hoped someone would like it enough to give me

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 183

encouragement. Public encouragement. I hoped for a little, as I said, but I got rather a whole lot,

and in some ways this was just about as frightening as the quick, merciful death I'd expected.”

Hence, the predictable autobiographical element in her first and only novel combined with

unforeseen initial success to produce a poisonous, paralytic artistic reaction.

It’s as if unexpected triumph and lionization convinced her that anything else she produced

would not only be judged against her first effort, but inevitably never even approach its success.

She had played the trump card of autobiography and won a huge pot, but had no aces left in her

deck. Would the struggle Harper Lee anticipated, that every first novelist anticipates, have kept

her in the game longer than a pat hand?

To come full circle, what I’m suggesting is that to one degree or another, for most novelists,

the autobiographical element is something ultimately, if not immediately, to be overcome. The

novelist may never abandon it, it may indeed provide the foundation of all the novelist’s work,

but the house of fiction he or she creates depends on the right tools to build on that foundation, to

shape the autobiographical materials at hand into a meaningful and beautiful structure. These

tools the novelist must discover and learn to use through time, struggle, and inevitable

disappointment, as no prepackaged, magical tool kit will provide them. And neither the right

tools or the so-called tool kit will ever guarantee publication. Harper Lee was the most fortunate

of novelists—and the most unfortunate.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 184

Chapter 19

Movie-Made America

As I’ve insisted repeatedly, for most first novelists the path to publication is neither

smooth nor straight. Would that it were only a Yellow Brick Road beset by lions and tigers and

bears oh, my!, but ending at the Emerald City. In reality, the challenges are monumental, the

obstacles often outrageous. The man behind the curtain demands not only the broomstick of the

Wicked Witch of the West, but the Golden Fleece, the sword from the stone, the treasure of

Sierra Madre, and the head of Alfredo Garcia. The long and labyrinthine journey offers no

guarantee of survival, let alone ultimate success.

This book reflects my experience in attempting to publish a first novel, as well as my outrage

at the process. And yet I find myself somewhat surprised by the book I’ve written. I knew I

would include a summing up, but its substance has become something different and more

complicated than I imagined. Rather like the characters in a novel.

Two things strike me now, though the seeds were there in the opening paragraphs. (That

pesky end-in-the-beginning thing.) First: the extent to which, in recounting the writing of my

novel, I’ve talked about writing any novel. No doubt that was inevitable, but it speaks well for

my ability to moderate my conceit and my personal sense of injury and to place them in the

appropriate context. Second: in discussing novel-writing, I’ve talked a great deal about movies.

Surely, I should have known I’d do so, because in a sense my whole life is one long movie

reference. But the reason for that is only partly autobiographical. It’s another, larger reason I

want to focus on now. In support of much of what follows, I owe a large debt to David

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 185

Thomson, his cogent, gem-like mini-essays in The New Autobiographical Dictionary of Film

(2003) as well as several other works.

If the secret to mainstream publication is that someone knows someone, like most

unpublished writers, I started out cold. I knew no one who could obviously or quickly assist me

in getting a novel published. I’d written several screenplays and, living in West Los Angeles,

was acquainted with a few people in the movie business. They were anything but major players,

but might have helped me to the back-door introduction to publication of a produced or at least

optioned screenplay. I mentioned my reluctance to pursue such a strategy in the opening pages of

this book. I realize now that my reservations went well beyond the congenital snobbery the

SERIOUS NOVELIST feels toward the screenwriter and the unlikelihood that I’d ever win an

Oscar and sleep with starlets. It even goes beyond distaste for the well-documented horrors of

screenwriting in Hollywood. My deepest discomfort with screenwriting is a formal one.

Movies are an art form, but screenplays are not. A play can be great literature, enjoyed as

such even if it is never staged. A screenplay can’t be great unless it is filmed, and it can never be

literature. Movies are a visual, kinetic, collaborative art. So, to an extent, is the theater, but it has

its roots in literature. A play is about the words, the text, regardless of what else augments them;

a screenplay uses words not to create the visual, but to propose it. (That is true even of dialogue.)

A play exists outside the proscenium; a movie has no existence outside the frame. In short, a play

is the thing; a screenplay is the tentative, changeable blueprint of the thing.

As the film director Nicholas Ray remarked, “If it were all in the script, why make the film?”

Though that says it all, I can’t help saying more. A movie relies on many elements and can be

good or bad (or good and bad) for many reasons—script, casting, acting, editing, scoring,

cinematography, direction, any combination thereof, and more. A screenplay has its own basic

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 186

elements—a structure both narrative and dramatic, dialogue, character description, even (if the

screenwriter is very foolish) shot selection and line readings—but these exist not as ends in

themselves but only to enable the film. Screenplays are schematic rather than organic. They

conform to a template.

Much the same is true of genre fiction, and serious novelists regard it with much the same

contempt they feel for screenwriting. In genre fiction, the conventions drive form; they define the

template. Movies go one step further, making explicit what genre fiction merely implies. In

movies, genre drives not only form, but substance.

That most movies are genre films or else glaring exceptions to the rule is no accident. The

words have no quality or meaning except as they serve the formal characteristics of film, which

are essentially, if not purely, visual. What constricts the screenwriter empowers the director.

Movie-making clarifies not only the differences between writer and director, screenplay and

completed film, but also between literary fiction and genre fiction. To amplify that point: movies

define the marketplace for fiction not because published novels become movies, but because so

many of those novels are themselves movies—formally, substantively, commercially. David

Thomson notes that “sooner or later movies are about the dirt of crowds and money.” Guess

what—not only movies.

When we identify a great screenplay (Double Indemnity, All about Eve, Sweet Smell of

Success, North by Northwest, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Chinatown, Network, The

Silence of the Lambs) or a great screenwriter (Ernest Lehman, William Goldman, Robert Towne,

Paddy Chayefsky), that greatness has only incidentally, if at all, to do with the words. The script

matters—it matters profoundly—but not in a literary sense. Memorable dialogue, no matter how

clever, pungent, poetic, or faithful to a literary source, does not make the screenplay literature.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 187

To elaborate on an earlier point, even great movie dialogue is all but dead on the page—a

realization I experienced almost as an epiphany, when reading the excerpt from Citizen Kane that

David Thomson includes in his fine memoir of childhood, Try to Tell the Story (2009). Movie

dialogue lives not by reason of the contextual narrative of the screenplay, but by virtue of its

delivery in the film. Quoting a screenwriter in an essay entitled 20 Things People Like to Forget

About Hollywood (#15 - “Scripts Are Bad Because Nobody Really Reads Them”), Thomson

notes that “’Reading is an alien rhythm to what happens on the screen.’”

Although words can create images, convey movement and gesture, frame action, and establish

mood, the visual power of words is inherently un-cinematic. In prose fiction, the visual is

inseparable from point of view, and point of view belongs to the narrator (character or author or

both). In movies, point of view rests with the camera and belongs to the director. (That is why

attempts to film a story from a character/narrator point of view, Robert Montgomery’s The Lady

in the Lake, for example, are equally exasperating and doomed to failure.) In the beginning was

not the Word, but the Camera. Little has changed since the title cards used in silent films made

the subservience of the verbal to the visual more than clear—and forever, despite the advent of

sound, defined the role of the screenwriter in the power structure of commercial moviemaking.

As Thomson observes, “always it is the visual element that indicates the author, because it is the

sharp point that pricks our senses.” In short, there are no great screenplays, only great films.

The screenwriter’s problem is usually stated as lack of control, no right of “final cut.” The

script will be revised or completely rewritten, often multiple times and by other hands. Scenes

and dialogue will be added, discarded, changed, or improvised during shooting. Writing credit

will be shared, adjudicated, even stolen. That “film is a director’s medium” has long been a

cliché; nevertheless, the term auteur and the screen credit “a film by,” acknowledge not only the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 188

primacy of the director (even if the director is writer-director), but the reason for it. In separating

the author from the text, these designations define the fundamental nature and function of a

screenplay and the transformation it must undergo. Its purpose is to suggest a vision at once

collaborative and irreducible.

This is the key element not only of a successful adaptation, but also, and more generally, of a

fruitful relationship between writer and director. What is filmed is not the screenplay, but a

shooting script. Screen before play, shooting before script. Not moving words but moving

pictures. Camera first and foremost. Roman Polanski understood the screenplay of Chinatown,

its cinematic requirements, better than Robert Towne did. Polanski didn’t impose his ending on

the film; that ending isn’t only better, it’s inevitable. Though Butch Cassidy and the Sundance

Kid seemed to swing the creative pendulum toward the writer, the film succeeds because the

cinematic trumps the novelistic. William Goldman himself implicitly acknowledges this in his

recurrent use of the technical term “CUT TO:” and his explanation that it is a substitute for the

novelistic, “he said.” If Chayefsky retains “authorship” of Network and The Hospital over

directors Sidney Lumet and Arthur Hiller, it isn’t because the verbal pyrotechnics alone light the

sky, but because the words reach critical mass through image and performance. The angry

explosions of Peter Finch and George C. Scott appear to be volcanic eruptions, spewing satiric

lava in every direction, but are in fact controlled chain reactions. Satire is what closes Saturday

night—unless its literary essence finds an effective correlative in action and gesture, which the

director controls. I’m saying this, and I’m a WRITER!

But I’m a writer, a novelist, with a strong, ineluctable connection to movies. Not Fade Away

may never become a movie, but it is in no small way about the movies. With this assertion I

don’t intend only to reiterate what I suggested in discussing the novel’s origin, quoting David

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 189

Thomson on the iconic Donna Reed. Judy Berman is a movie heroine, but that’s not the whole

story. Nor do I refer only to the extent to which the movies shape Andy Lerner’s initial view of

the world. The book is about the movies in the way certain movies are about movies. And I don’t

mean films about the milieu and process of movie-making. Nor am I thinking in terms of movie

plot, the classic/clichéd story arc of boy gets girl, boy loses girl, etc.

The films I have in mind are Citizen Kane and Rear Window. Though their stories don’t

involve the movies, the movie metaphor in both is neither mysterious nor obscure. Consider the

first as being essentially not about William Randolph Hearst, but Orson Welles: Welles the artist,

writer, director, and star; Welles the magician, with the RKO studio as Xanadu or Prospero’s

island. Citizen Kane provides a superlative demonstration of the moviemaker’s ability to conjure

reality and truth from mere shadows—to employ the power of deep focus photography and

visible ceilings to suggest that the shadows are reality and truth, that twenty-four frames per

second is the speed of life.

That is a version of the lie that dwells at the heart of things, the fire that consumes Rosebud.

The conjuror believes that his talent for illusion is what makes him the rightful Duke of Milan,

only to discover that it dooms him to perpetual exile. Armored in the solipsistic innocence of

genius and inspiration, like newspaper publisher Charlie Kane composing his statement of

principles for the Inquirer, he mistakes the statement for the principles. The inquirer cannot

survive the inquiry, and Xanadu can never be finished. Co-opting, in the service of his own

aspiration and ambition, the Hearst story and the news mogul’s power to manufacture reality,

Welles not only transgresses against Hearst (and, for that matter, Henry Luce) and the studio

bosses, but against his co-screenwriter, Herman Mankiewicz. As a screenwriter, Mankiewicz

merely resented the director’s position in the pecking order. Thus, his famous comment about

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 190

Welles: “There, but for the grace of God, goes God.” But it was Herman Mankiewicz who

telegraphed Ben Hecht from Hollywood in the early 1930s, “There’s millions to be grabbed out

here and the only competition is idiots. Don’t let this get around.” Mankiewicz was the cynic

both enticed and wounded by power, Welles the artist destroyed by it, not least by his own.

With Hitchcock, the primacy of the director and the power of the camera foster not artistic

pride but artistic prurience. What are that rear window and the dramas it reveals if not a movie

frame? In this instance, the artist isn’t the charismatic owner of the Inquirer dominating that

frame with his statement of principles. He is James Stewart as the injured photographer, “Jeff”

Jeffries, imprisoned in a plaster leg cast and a wheelchair, watching his neighbors through a

telephoto lens; he is Hitchcock confined to the director’s chair, incapacitated except for the

power granted him by his art. But it is an art of stylized neurotic anxiety. Hitchcock claimed his

greatest fear was of arrest, but his film technique suggests that he dreaded even more what arrest

may lead to—exposure. The camera isn’t imagination’s instrument, but its substitute; it reveals

by intrusion and manipulation. Hitchcock gets off on the sexual fireworks between Stewart and

Grace Kelly because neither he nor his leading man can have her; for both, the only anodyne to

impotence is watching. The filmmaker is no less a spectator than the ticket buyer; he just has a

better seat.

Unlike Welles, Hitchcock is no Prospero in exile. Not for Hitch the decades of toiling

fruitlessly in the less arable reaches of the commercial vineyard or, at best, having his wine sold

before its time. He is instead the successful, studio-bound conjuror, who knows that “sooner or

later American films are about the dirt of money and crowds.” Despite his visual and narrative

skills, his technical mastery of filmmaking to create and maintain “suspense,” his genius rests on

the limitation he shares with his audience. Though critics remark on his ability to induce his

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 191

audience to leave their seats, the obvious point is that the audience, no more than the director

himself, ever does so. Over the years, Hitchcock’s brief cameos in the films have increasingly

seemed to me a sly joke that reaches its apotheosis in the opening of North by Northwest, when

he just misses the bus. Hitchcock not only acknowledges, but practices what Thomson identifies

as “the compulsive voyeurism of the spectator,” our common fascination with the darkly

obsessive stuff that dreams are made of and the erotic charge it provides. Movies are voyeurism

without the risk (as the Internet would be, were it not for credit card numbers and the “digital

footprint”). To engage in it other than vicariously is to risk the two broken legs Jeffries has as the

end of Rear Window. To give it up, to be without the obsession, is to be Scottie Ferguson cured

of vertigo; to conquer fear is to lose everything. Of what use to be first in line for the next bus if

you can’t get aboard or have no change to pay the fare?

What can my tale of a Texas fifteen-year-old in 1959 have to do with all of this? Like Young

Goodman Brown setting off on his trek through the darkening, shadowy forest, Andy Lerner

goes in search of the truth, only to have revealed to him the lie that dwells at the heart of things.

To posit the existence of such a lie is not to suggest that there is no such thing as truth, that

everything is a lie or that there is no distinction between truth and lies. To say that Andy

discovers the lie is not to say that he doesn’t find the truth. Knowledge and experience reveal a

complexity ignored by the sharp dichotomy of absolutes—good and evil, light and darkness,

doubt and faith, gods and men, heroes and villains. Myth requires a similar simplicity, one that

accounts for its power and beauty as metaphoric truth. Unfortunately, the unquestioning

acceptance of myth as literal truth requires not only simplicity but simple-mindedness. This is

the lethal mutation that so often produces the lie, not to mention a noun ending in –ism.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 192

As I suggested early on, our best stories and greatest art originate in myth. One need not

rehearse Plato’s objections to mimetic art in The Republic to observe that if art “lies,” the

deception springs from the imitative nature of art and the pleasure it affords. The problem is

cognitive, not the inability of art to speak the truth, but the mistaken perception of artistic truth as

“reality”—a mistake that originates in willing suspension of disbelief. Art provides a version of

ourselves and our experience that is better than either. Great art recognizes the gap even as it

encourages us to attempt, however futilely, to close it. Lesser art ignores the gap or, all too

frequently and cynically, pretends it doesn’t exist. It is less complicated, less demanding, more

easily “understood.” Great art may be popular art; lesser art nearly always is, conceding at least

something to commercial taste and convention. The hero of great art is Sisyphus; the hero of

lesser art is Walter Mitty.

Moreover, a Gresham’s Law applies to art as well as to money. The lesser coinage drives the

more valuable one out of circulation—into museums, libraries, and private collections, the

holders of the “good money.” The legal tender law empowering this version of Gresham is the

notion that art is art—the equal value of greater and lesser. The lesser art not only comes to

dominate the marketplace, its debasement enables that dominance. It becomes the preferred

coinage of those who traffic there. Movies, purveying stories built for and around movie stars,

refine the distinction in a crucial and devastating way—Walter Mitty is a winner, Sisyphus a

loser. The only thing that succeeds is success. At the top of the steepest hill of all is the

HOLLYWOOD sign.

The stuff that dreams are made of. The Dream Factory. The American Dream.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 193

Not Fade Away is about movies because it’s about America—the land of heroes and villains.

It’s about “movie-made America,” to borrow the title of a 1975 book (revised 1994) by the

cultural critic Robert Sklar. Consider the notion, the phenomenon, of “movie-made America” in

relation to a phrase almost as pervasive and charged with meaning as the American Dream. The

American Experience encapsulates the quest to fulfill the dream. That experience is not historical

but mythic, rooted in the belief that the past doesn’t matter. Thus the creation of an American

Adam, the inheritor of a new Eden, Fitzgerald’s “fresh green breast of the New World.” Pristine

and isolated, it is a place unencumbered by history and historical time. The American Experience

defines individual as types, the quintessential one being the “Common Man.” His primary

characteristic “rugged individualism,” defines and enables him only because it is a shared value.

To observe that the American Experience antedates movie-made America is not nearly so

obvious a statement as it sounds. The nexus of the two is the national literature.

I initially referred to the myth of the Adamic hero in chapter 2, noting his origins in our

fiction with Cooper and Twain. In his 1955 work, The American Adam, R.W.B. Lewis also

emphasizes the role of Hawthorne and Melville, as well as the non-novelists Emerson, Thoreau,

and Whitman, in the early exposition and examination of the “new man” (not to exclude Henry

James and The American) defined in de Crevecoeur’s eighteenth-century Letters from an

American Farmer.

As that work makes clear, the new Adam sprang from the conditions of the land itself. The

land was virgin even if Adam wasn’t, and it was land that enabled and defined the rhythms of

our historical process—the westward movement, the Indian geno—er, wars, the ineffectual

compromises over slavery, the transcontinental reach of telegraph and railroad, the violent code

of the frontier, the exploitation of abundant resources to fuel unbridled capitalism, the reluctance

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 194

to embrace internationalism. Land meant not only potential wealth, but certain freedom, and

there was enough for everybody (everybody being white, Christian and, for the most part, male).

Land made the American Empire as surely as the lack of it made the British. But for Britain

the sea lanes and the “far-flung battle line” were imperial instruments, as the Roman road and the

legionnaire’s sword had enabled an earlier empire, geography overcome rather than fulfilled.

And whatever else it expresses, “the white man’s burden” is an obligation and a responsibility,

an Old Testament sacrifice. Kipling again: “Go bind your sons to exile/To serve your captives'

need.” In contrast, American expansion wasn’t duty but destiny—“manifest destiny,” the land as

New Testament revelation of innocence reaffirmed. One nation under God, sea to shining sea.

Location, location, location.

The land was not a myth, but as the literal bedrock of American history, the land created the

need for a myth that would address and incorporate its vastness, its abundance and isolation. So

firm a mythic grounding is not a generic feature of historical presentation or interpretation.

History, no less than fiction, always requires a narrative, and a narrative always imposes

selection, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the historical narrative will be fictive. Conversely,

the myth behind the history doesn’t mean the history will inevitably be “untrue.” I said earlier

that myths were stories that were “truer than true.” I should add that this notion cuts both ways.

“The white man’s burden,” for example, reinforces the British imperial narrative, but as

rationale rather than myth. That history is neither mythic nor fictive, because the rationale drives

the narrative, but is not itself the narrative. It is “truer than true” only as a lie replaces the truth

(land and money grab) and is accepted as such. To refer to “the myth of racial superiority” used

to legitimize the white man’s burden is to make the conventional equation of myth and lie.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 195

Similarly, “manifest destiny” provides a rationale for American expansionism and racism, but

if the similarity doesn’t exactly end there, a divergence begins. Through the myth of the

American Adam in the New World garden, the rationale becomes the narrative, creating the

American epic—as such epics are traditionally created—through the identification, the fusion, of

the representative hero with the land and its possibilities. This epic narrative is “truer than true,”

not because it substitutes an attractive fiction for a less palatable historical reality (“there’s

millions to be grabbed out here and the only competition is idiots”), nor because it supplies a

simple explanation for complex forces and processes. It provides instead a simple, elegant

reconciliation of the irreconcilable—the paradox inherent in the oxymoron “American history.”

The fictive element in that history, conditioned by the fundamental myth, is the possibility of

escape—from time, history, civilization and its discontents. Inevitably, that is the archetypal

narrative of our literature—from the chase-capture-escape motif in James Fennimore Cooper to

Huck Finn lighting out for the territory to Jim Gatz re-creating himself as Jay Gatsby.

As I noted early on, our best literature, not content merely to dramatize or sustain the myth,

examines and questions it. “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into

the past,” says Nick Carraway. “Oleh, Grandfather,” Ike McCaslin salutes the snake in

Faulkner’s “Delta Autumn.” “The past isn’t dead. It’s not even past,” remarks Gavin Stevens in

Faulkner’s Requiem for a Nun, repeating Maule’s Curse. The great danger of the fictive element

is that a refusal to examine the complex implications and consequences of the myth that

produced it leads to the perpetration and perpetuation of pure fictions. Or pure escape, in several

senses of the term. Movie-made America.

American movies were not, however, the first form of entertainment to exploit and to

exemplify this tendency. Nor were they the first to popularize history. The dime novel and

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 196

Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show had already accomplished that. What the movies accomplished

was to populate history in a particular way and on a particular scale. They dramatized history not

only by fictionalizing it or bowdlerizing it, or both, but by giving historical persons familiar

faces and roles. They made it about stars and featured players and extras, good guys and bad

guys, cowboys and Indians, G-men and gangsters, GIs and Krauts/Japs/gooks —mythic typology

codified and enshrined as type casting.

In short, Hollywood treats real people and historical events just as they treat any other subject.

The classic movie biographies, for example, follow the same story lines and conventions as

wholly fictional product. Yankee Doodle Dandy and The Jolson Story aren’t biographies or even

“biopics,” they’re musicals. The Kennedy assassination and Watergate aren’t historical events,

they’re conspiracy thrillers. The battle of the Bulge is a war movie, the battle of Gettysburg a

costume epic, the Battle of New Orleans a swashbuckler, the battle of the Alamo a western.

Henry Fonda is Abe Lincoln and Wyatt Earp, so Wyatt Earp is also Abe Lincoln; Andrew

Jackson is always Charlton Heston, which means that Andrew Jackson also delivered the Ten

Commandments, painted the Sistine Chapel, and saved Spain from the Moors, only to lose

Khartoum to them. (That Hollywood treats any country’s history exactly as they do America’s

speaks volumes about both Hollywood and American history, not the nature of history itself.)

Obviously, movies blur fact and fiction, and the star system accounts to a large extent for the

confusion. The latter, however, depends on the existence of two additional, complementary

conditions. The history had to possess some element that made it amenable to such treatment. It

did: romance. And the movies had to possess some quality of history. They did: not fact, but

reality. Our literature again provides the linkage.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 197

Literary critics long ago noted the dominance of romance over realism in American fiction.

The opposition defines the meaning of “romance” in this context, and it is enough to say, absent

long elaboration, that the term leads straight back to myth—that is, not the closely observed

texture of ordinary, time-bound life, but something that transcends the latter and gives meaning

and value to it. America’s creation myth provides the non-temporal underpinning of the national

narratives, both historical and fictive. The through line of both is not evolutionary process, but

elemental conflict. It roots the country’s origins in the opposition of, and the struggle between,

good and evil—history not as the record of what happened and why, but as a story of biblical

confrontation (New World/New Testament versus Old). As a result, evil became easy to

identify: it was un-American. To the list of opposing character types I gave above should be

added patriots and subversives. Adam no longer named the animals; he named names. The

American Adam was born not only by the water, but on the waterfront.

Movies represent the simultaneous and conflation not only of fact and fantasy, but of the

mythopoeic and the mimetic. Movies not only popularize on an unprecedented scale, they make

everything “real.” The illusion of reality fostered by the basic elements of cinema disguises the

inherent romanticism that is the core substance of American film and imparts to it the

“legitimacy” of historical narrative. One nation under God, from soundstage to back lot.

In this context, the representative American film is Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation. It is an

archetypal example of the lie that dwells at the heart of things not only because it demonizes the

emancipated slaves and glorifies the Ku Klux Klan. It retains its power in what passes for a more

sophisticated age horrified by such notions for the same reason that its source material, Thomas

Dixon’s novel The Clansman (1905), is scarcely remembered, let alone read. That is, it gives

vivid dramatic life to the Civil War as “the birth of a nation” because the conflict preserved the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 198

union. That nation, as a condition of its existence (not to mention a primary feature of manifest

destiny) was to be one and indivisible.

But . . . and a big but it is. As a condition of its success, both artistic and popular, the conflict

had to be cast in terms of the opposition created by the creation myth—good and evil, black and

white. Griffith, more than any other film pioneer, “invented” the language of film. As film critic

Roger Ebert has noted, “he was the first director to understand how a movie could mimic the

human ability to scan an event quickly, noting details in the midst of the larger picture.” But

Griffith’s innovations were more than formal or technical; inevitably, they also encompassed the

thematic, substantive language of film as well. Even more than that, Griffith defined the popular

appeal of Hollywood movies. Like the American historical narrative, American movies clothe

myth in the trappings of reality. (So, of course, does television, reductio ad absurdum.) They

hide in plain sight one of the fundamental characteristics of popular art, which is that the

democratic bears a strong tincture of the demagogic. The Capracorn is green, cultivated in the

dirt of crowds and money. Green as in greenbacks, rather than the fresh green breast of the New

World. (Or the green of grapes. Obviously, if the Common Man was meant to sip Chardonnay

rather than chug Budweiser, America would still be called Vineland.)

Even as movies fictionalize and trivialize history, they demonstrate that the historical

narrative itself allows them to do so. As the Henry Gibson character insists in the opening song

of Nashville, “We must be doing somethin’ right to last two hundred years.” Our movies are a

metaphor for American history, demonstrating over and over again that our history should

probably carry a disclaimer: Inspired by real events!

* * *

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 199

And so, back to Not Fade Away. Andy Lerner is an Adamic hero, born by the water (more

about that in a moment). At the beginning of the novel, he believes devoutly in escape—from

school, from bullying, from social failure, from responsibility for his actions and their

consequences. But he believes almost as ardently in history, beginning but scarcely ending with

his own family. What seduces him in the stories Grandma Celia tells is not, however, the history,

but the fictive narrative. (Witness his consternation that the decrepit Great-Grandpa Simon he

knows is the man who faced down gangster bootleggers.) And so, unbeknownst to himself, he is

faced with a paradox, which happens to be the central paradox of American history. For Andy,

the movies provide both escape and an alternate, more desirable personal and family history.

What he ultimately learns is that no escape is possible or, finally, desirable. Life is lived not at

the movies, but in history, in real rather than cinematic time.

Andy both is and is not a typical Adamic hero. Born by the water, yes, but the temporary

overflow of a neighborhood drainage ditch during the rain showers that follow the beating

administered by Rodney Dawson and his pals rather than Twain’s Mississippi. Earlier, I said that

“I wanted to place Andy at a sort of historical four-way stop—American, Southern, Texan,

Jewish.” Each of these reinforces the others in its impact and its influence on Andy. If he finds

himself at a four-way stop, which direction does he take from there? It doesn’t matter, because

any of them will lead him home, where all roads in memory begin—to the lie that dwells at the

heart of things.

Andy is reborn into history as truth, reborn to confront and accept the lie’s existence. Not to

accept or ignore the lie, but to acknowledge it, beginning with the ambiguity about his parentage.

In doing so, he puts behind him the timelessness of a child’s summer for an adult’s life in time.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 200

He isn’t Huck Finn lighting out for the territory; rather, he shines a light on the past, exploring

his history and the history of his times through memory.

To sum up the summing up: if the theme of Not Fade Away is “the lie that dwells at the heart

of things,” then the book is about the movies, and in multiple ways, because it is about the lie.

History lies to the extent that it relies on a fictive narrative. Art lies (in the Platonic sense),

because in imitating reality it creates a version of experience that seems attainable because it

seems real. And there is no art form closer to reality than the movies. They seduce us into

believing that “closer” means “close.” Moreover, genre-based American movies lie historically

by subverting historical fact to the fictive narrative. And memory lies because it incorporates

both history and fiction. It involves both narrative and selection. How “true” it is depends on the

conscious and unconscious volition of the person doing the remembering, the moral sense and

the love that he or she brings to the task. (To repeat: the book is the first novel of a trilogy.)

The connection of our history and our literature to American movies remains ineluctable. As

David Thomson notes in a more recent compendium, Have You Seen . . .? (2008), “the movies

had done terrible damage to a sense of American history with their addled faith in bogus myths.”

He is writing about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the film that produced the famous

Fordian dictum, “when the legend and the facts conflict, print the legend.” Illusion equals

delusion. The only antidote is the truth of wisdom—rigorously, often painfully, achieved.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 201

Chapter 20

Pinocchio Again

The end in the beginning. I remain a Serious Novelist, and that remains a mixed blessing in

terms of the contemporary literary marketplace. I’d also like to revert one last time to the

statement I initially made in the Prologue. Exploring the fantasy that one route to becoming a

published novelist was through Hollywood, I characterized being a screenwriter when one wants

to be a novelist as being Pinocchio instead of a real boy. The same distinction applies (only more

so) to the SN who self-publishes in the hope of attracting a literary agent and a commercial

publisher. That possibility, by the way, is the only form of success available to a self-published

Serious Novelist. There’s a good reason self-publication services were once generally and

pejoratively known as vanity presses.

In its earlier usage, the Pinocchio analogy involved a qualitative difference between what the

screenwriter and the novelist produce; in this penultimate chapter, however, I’m using the same

analogy to establish and clarify a difference not between a novel and some other type of creative

writing, but a self-published novel and one that is traditionally published.

I made the decision to self-publish for three reasons. First, I wasn’t getting any younger, and I

wanted to publish in my lifetime. In addition, I’d worked on Not Fade Away for more years than

I cared to admit and through more drafts than I could count. I needed to move on, in my life and

in my work. Finally, though, and most importantly, I self-published because I had no choice. In

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 202

today’s publishing marketplace, no first novelist writing literary fiction has a choice, unless he or

she has extraordinary perseverance and, more critically, extraordinary luck.

But there’s an inherent paradox, a trap, in self-publishing. Unlike the genre novelist, no first

novelist who self-publishes a work of serious fiction has a prayer of crossing over to commercial

publication unless that novelist has even more extraordinary perseverance and even more

extraordinary luck. It’s not that absolutely no one will notice the work. If the self-published

novelist spends enough money, someone probably will. The problem, in addition to the

ingrained, pervasive agent bias against self-published works—as an experienced editor friend of

mine has noted, “most of them, perhaps even 99% of them, are amateurish efforts that would

never see the light of day otherwise”—is that no one will think outside the genre box.

On the other hand—or else it’s simply another trap—any form of publication is better than

none. (Hold that thought: it will come up again.) Having already spent more money than I—and

my wife—were comfortable toting up, I first consulted her. Everything I did subsequently was

with her generous agreement. Did I say my wife likes the book?

I decided that if I was going to self-publish, I wasn’t going to skimp on it. (Inevitably, there

are self-publishing manuals, which I managed to avoid.) Here I encountered one of the few

pieces of unadulterated good luck in the long process of writing, marketing, and publishing Not

Fade Away. I don’t know where such numbers come from, or why, but I had established $2,000

as the maximum it was reasonable to spend on the publishing venture. (Without skimping!) The

package selected also had to include hardcover as well as paperback publication. Self-publication

was one thing, self-publication only in paperback was quite another. Call me crazy.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 203

The only package anywhere near the maximum cost that still offered the most in terms of

production quality and marketing options was $2,999. (It was a real comfort to know that the

cost was under $3,000.) That was half again as much as my maximum. But here the luck

intervened. Unlike potential agents and commercial publishers, publishing services immediately

respond to and pursue queries to them. Competition between them abounds, and they follow up

relentlessly. (Hold that thought too.) In November, 2008, the sales rep for the service with the

$2999 package informed me that his company was having a half-price sale. That meant the price

tag fell comfortably within my self-imposed maximum, even with $349.00 added for “expedited”

publication. (Did I say no skimping or not? Besides, as I also said, I wasn’t getting any younger.)

The Premium package included copy-editing. Unlike Lenore Raven’s never-ending, soul-

crushing, bank-account-destroying line edit, this was limited to “spelling, punctuation,

grammatical and obvious word choice errors.” That is exactly what the copy editors delivered.

So far, so good. (Yet again, hold that thought.)

Moreover, as the process moved forward, I had another of those attacks of the obvious that I

like to regard as epiphanies. Self-publication is a form of marketing. I was achieving the

satisfaction of publication simultaneously with a continuing marketing effort. Emails and a press

release were provided as part of the package, and they were said to be targeted in terms of both

the content and setting of the novel. But, as always, for a price. I also paid extra for a review in

Kirkus Discoveries. And once the author turns the spigot on, the author must turn it off. The

book could also be targeted to certain blogs, but at a cost I considered excessive. Despite my

refusal, the publishing service continued to offer other marketing services at staggering prices.

Let me clear about one thing. I have no issues at with the quality of the book produced by the

publishing service. It not only looks like a book and quacks like a book, it is a very handsome

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 204

specimen in both the hardcover and paperback editions, solid, durable, and altogether classy. The

web pages designed for the book as part of the publication package are professional and

attractively functional. The real drawback of self-publication is that publication is only the

beginning. Be careful what you epiphanize. As a profit enterprise, the publishing services exist

not to publish an author’s book, but to sell the author marketing add-ons once the book is

published. That’s what their business model is all about.

And with good reason. Publication means nothing, nada, less than zero, if people don’t know

about the book. The only way they’ll find out about it is through promotion, which means either

that the author spends money or does it himself (which also involves costs, financial and

otherwise). The only sure way to enhance the likelihood of a successful promotional effort is to

spend a lot of money, as in like a commercial publisher, using both print and online media. The

alternative is something called “word-of-mouth” and the notion that it increases exponentially.

The so-called third alternative—driving from bookstore to bookstore with copies of your novel

loaded in the trunk of your car—is an urban legend. At least for Serious Novelists. It’s an utter

waste of time. Not to mention gasoline. And guess who paid for that trunk load of copies.

In its simplest, ideal form, word-of-mouth works as follows. An author gives or sells his or

her self-published novel to at least two people (Friends or family, though either choice is

dangerous, the latter one particularly so. As Jane Smiley suggests, a novel can be a source of

profound embarrassment to those nearest and dearest to the novelist.) Both people read and like

the book, and each recommends the book to two more people, each of whom reads and likes the

book and recommends it to two more people. At this point, three cycles into the word-of-mouth

phenomenon, a maximum of fourteen copies have theoretically been sold. It takes another three

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 205

rounds to cross the 100-copy threshold, then three more rounds to reach a thousand copies, but

only one more round to sell two thousand copies. Only after ten word-of-mouth cycles does

exponential increase even begin to become a significant factor.

This process assumes, of course, that everyone involved reads and likes the book. It also

assumes, though less obviously, that everyone recommends the book in a timely manner.

Exponentiation isn’t exactly the same thing as momentum, but the former relies on the latter, at

least until the exponentiation becomes large enough to be indistinguishable from momentum.

Unfortunately, that isn’t how word-of-mouth really works. That is Platonic word-of-mouth,

not reproducible on this earth. In the world of imperfect reflections of the ideal which we

occupy, word-of-mouth has to deal with readers who read at different speeds, who don’t all start

or finish the book, who don’t all like it, and who don’t all recommend the book even if they do.

In short, it relies on people to whom your novel, much as those people might like and care about

you, is not the most important thing in the world. (Hard to believe, but there you are. Reality

bites like the Hound of the Baskervilles.) Or suppose the friends or family who initiate the

process are over-praising the book, even if unconsciously, because of their relationship to the

author. Word-of-mouth could end in the first round of non-friends or family. Potent word-of-

mouth depends, and depends critically, on anonymity—the lack of any ties between the author

and the readers who kick-start it.

Only one thing may achieve anonymity on a scale large enough to generate effective word-of-

mouth, which is no less dependent on a promotional effort than any other type of “buzz” about a

book. Self-publication requires self-promotion. No one is going to do it for the writer except at a

steep price. The only relatively inexpensive alternative is for the author to avoid the marketing

packages offered by the publishing services: design the ads himself or prevail upon someone else

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 206

to do it at a reasonable rate; purchase print and online ads directly; make a promotional video;

and, of course, do the legwork—often literally, and certainly on the Internet.

This is the second part of the required self-promotion: Get the book itself placed. Get it

noticed. Get it placed in bookstores and, even more importantly, get it displayed in the right

place in those stores. (Driving from bookstore to bookstore with copies of the book—even if it is

true—is no guarantee of placement, let alone desirable placement.) Get the video up on

YouTube; target the blogs that might also assist word-of-mouth; “mark up” the book for

electronic readers such as those marketed by Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Sony.

This effort requires a skill set that one doesn’t readily associate with professional novelists,

certainly not those who produce literary fiction. To offer a gross, unprovable generalization, non-

fiction writers seem to be much better at employing these skills. The short, equally speculative,

explanation is that they’re more “practical.” After all, they’re writing about “real life.” Such

practical savvy is true, I suspect, even of the recovering addict who writes a confessional

memoir. Getting a book noticed is simply another opportunity to exercise the “coping” skills

acquired during the author’s twelve-step rebirth.

I don’t mean to suggest that this kind of effort is demeaning to a writer, even a Serious

Novelist. But of all the kinds of novelists out there, the SN is the least likely to have the

necessary sales skills, Internet marketing savvy and technological expertise, and all-around

chutzpah to be effective at creating a demand, from scratch, for his or her own product. In this

respect, as I noted in chapter 7, the writer of literary fiction differs not only from non-fiction

writers, but from genre novelists as well.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 207

So how did I, serious novelist that I am, do at mastering the realities and promoting the self?

Can there be any doubt how I did at it? First, however, the good news.

I paid for two reviews of Not Fade Away, the one in Kirkus Discoveries I’ve already

mentioned as well as one from Clarion, a review service of the trade magazine ForeWord

Reviews. Both reviews were exceptionally positive. (Or not exceptionally, depending on whom

you ask. There’s a theory that because a review is purchased, it will necessarily be positive. This

isn’t true, but try convincing those who believe otherwise that it isn’t.) “A wonderfully written

book about growing up,” Kirkus concluded, specifically noting that “Gordon displays

considerable wit along with charged emotional drama, mostly through his adroit use of dialogue”

and that Andy’s relationship with many of the other characters “are stellar examples of perfect

literary pitch.” Even more specifically the review characterized the relationship of Andy and

Hattie Mae as “a stunning portrait of a rapidly evolving relationship.” Clarion described the book

as “a rich and thoughtful tale of self-discovery, both poignant and witty, told by a charming

narrative voice. Dialogue is engaging and skillfully crafted, enriching characterization while

capturing the essence of the time period.” Much as the earlier review had focused on the

Andy/Hattie Mae relationship, this one saw in the growing bond between Andy and Great-

grandpa Simon evidence of “the compassionate young man Andy is becoming as he tentatively

navigates changes both feared and anticipated.” Even more significantly, at least for me, the

reviewer understood the time period and cultural allusiveness of the novel, Buddy Holly as “a

voice of innocence in an era preceding a time of great change and disillusionment.”

So what notice or progress did these reviews garner me? Well, I’ve quoted at length from

them here because of the strong possibility that otherwise you may never see them. Good as they

were, the reviews generated nothing in terms of sales, word-of-mouth, or unsolicited additional

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 208

reviews or recommendations. I wasn’t inundated by offers of representation from literary agents,

and Houston bookstores still expressed zero interest in stocking the book or sponsoring a

signing.

On the basis of the Kirkus review, however, one literary agent did contact me about

representation. She was Rebecca Oliver of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment. I’m using

her real name because my exchange with her was straightforward and altogether professional.

She requested a copy of the book and read it within a couple of weeks. She said she enjoyed it

and thought Andy was a very engaging protagonist—but passed. Her reasons were that she felt

Andy’s relationship with Miss Beecham was “problematic” and that the mystery of Andy’s

parentage was “undercooked.” These may or may not have been the real reasons, especially as

Ms. Oliver remarked that she wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone else had already picked up

the book for representation. So Not Fade Away was ready for prime time, just not on her

network. Frankly, I’d have been surprised if the book had been a good fit for her agency. As an

editor friend of mine remarked, “every agency wants the PERFECT BOOK—for them.” In the

case of William Morris, there was no obvious movie tie-in or easy sell except perhaps to old fart

baby boomers. But, considering that it was a big time refusal, I felt remarkably good about it.

Though it illustrates the role luck plays in the whole process, it was so far above the customary

level of exchange between agents and first novelists that I considered it a validation. Of course,

I’d have preferred having an agent, but I began to feel that I eventually would have one.

Especially as I happened to read that something like sixty agents passed on Kathryn Stockett’s

best-selling novel The Help (set in Mississippi in 1962) before she secured representation.

Naturally, I can’t at this point resist a bad news anecdote, again using real names. Shortly

after my exchange with Rebecca Oliver, on the basis of a review I’d seen, I read Jonathan

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 209

Tropper’s new novel, This Is Where I Leave You (2009). I was struck by its focus on Jewish

characters and saw an additional similarity to my work in its serio-comic tone. I also saw a blurb

regarding an earlier Tropper novel by the novelist Tom Perrotta that noted not the impossibility

of going home again, but the inevitability. This resonates with a line I had written. “We have no

choice but to go home again” is not only the opening sentence of Not Fade Away, it may well

stand as the primary theme of my fiction to date.

In the Acknowledgements of his new novel, Tropper thanks his agent, Simon Lipskar of

Writers House, noting that Lipskar “gets” him as a writer. As I need, without doubt if I am to

succeed as a novelist, an agent who “gets” me, I had another reason to query Mr. Lipskar. Which

I proceed to do, following the submission guidelines on the Writers House website. I also

mentioned that I had two books already completed, not only the novel, but a companion piece,

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It, the latter about writing and trying to market that first novel.

I was well aware by then that my first contact with the queried agency would be not with Mr.

or Ms. High-Powered Agent but the HPA’s assistant, who screens queries and decides which of

them will passed on to the HPA for possible follow-up (presumably according to guidelines

established by the agent/boss). Given the volume of queries, that is a perfectly reasonable,

though hardly foolproof process. I was, indeed, initially contacted not by Rebecca Oliver but by

her assistant, Shaun Dolan. Much, however, depends on the qualities and abilities of the agent’s

assistant. (It’s possible, of course, that it was Shaun Dolan rather than Rebecca Oliver who

actually read my book. It would neither surprise nor disappoint me, though it may have some

bearing on the point to which I’m building.) Simon Lipskar’s assistant is, or was at the time, a

person named Josh Getzler. Within a week of posting my carefully crafted query (about a

nanosecond in author/agent query time), I received the following reply:

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 210

Dear Mr. Gordon.

Thank you for your query for Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Loves It [sic]. I’m sorry I

don’t have better news for you, but I am afraid your project does not seem like one we

could successfully take on at this time. I do hope you succeed in your search for passionate,

enthusiastic representation.

Obviously, my query bored the living shit out of Mr. Getzler. His response oozes ennui and

condescension. Equally obviously (to me anyway), is that in stark contrast to Rebecca Oliver’s

assistant, Shaun Dolan, Josh Getzler is an incompetent dufus—lazy, inattentive, sloppy, and not

noticeably intelligent. The query wasn’t principally about Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It, and

even it was, Getzler gets the title wrong. Am I being over-sensitive and exceptionally snarky

here? You bet I am. The problem is not that this was a rejection. Lord knows, I’m prepared for

that and have experienced dismissals even more curt. The problem is that Getzler can’t be

bothered to adhere to even the very minimal conventions that govern such exchanges and that

vastly favor the agent anyway. It isn’t only I who should be upset, but his boss as well, because

someday Getzler’s phone-it-in work habits and lack of work ethic will cost Mr. Lipskar and

Writers House or some other agency dearly.

And, as Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes. Or went—and for quite some time.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 211

Chapter 21

A Last Word—for Now

There is a final, telling anecdote. It coalesces around a few choice words: Greed, because like

everything else in Wannabeland, it’s first and foremost about a Howtu making a buck.

Incompetence, because the devil is in the details, and so are the warning signs for those willing

not only to look for them, but to heed them. Disdain, because the puppeteer dealing with the

Wannabe knows just how much the Wannabe wants to be a real boy or girl and has no scruples

about exploiting that desire by seeming to pull the strings. And finally, above all else, absurdity.

Rick Usher, the editor who worked briefly on Not Fade Away with Lenore Raven, wrote to

congratulate me on publishing the book. He also referred me to an Internet-based service that

helps Wannabes identify and query the agents most likely to be interested in their work. The

principal contact is another novelist, whose initials are B.S. (I kid you not.) If B.S. really thinks

the writer is good, she’ll submit to agents herself with a personal recommendation—for an

additional fee. This, according to her pitch, increases the likelihood of the all-important read.

One might well ask what makes a novelist go into such a business. The house of

commercially published fiction is a pretty small one these days, and those who live there have no

wish to be crowded out. But let’s give B.S. the benefit of the doubt and trust to another well-

known fact: most fiction doesn’t sell that well. And a gal’s gotta make a living, right?

I checked out the web site and decided, hey, why not? (A few hundred bucks more? Oh, go

on! Help stimulate the economy. It’s 2009.) I filled out the online questionnaire that would allow

B.S.to target specific agents for me. Note that B.S. herself did not undertake to read the book. A

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 212

few weeks later—another nanosecond in Wannabeland time—I received a report that targeted

five agents. Only problem was, all were agents who specialized in Young Adult fiction.

Apparently, because I’d called my book a coming-of-age story and it had a protagonist narrating

events that occurred when he was fifteen years old, it was YA fiction. I wrote back not only

questioning the categorization, but also pointing out the retrospective nature of the narrative—

the older Andy remembering his younger self from an adult perspective.

At her suggestion, B.S. and I talked by phone. She admitted that what I had told her was a

potential “game-changer” in terms of agents to be targeted and requested that I send her the first

twenty pages of the book in soft copy. I did.

She responded within a day or so, saying she was “enormously impressed.” She then offered

the extra service of her personal recommendation, which I accepted. The charge went from

$360.00 to $725.00.

This was the point at which things began to get weird. (How could I have ever doubted it?)

Though B.S. had subsequently requested the entire manuscript in a single MS Word file for

submission to agents who agreed to a read, she only planned to “dip” into the book herself to

help her prepare her pitch. Even the dipping process was delayed by “computer glitches.” (An

unpleasant reminder of Lenore Raven’s frequent computer glitches. Apparently, few of the

Howtu’s of Wannabeland possess reliable personal computers.)

Once the technical difficulties were resolved, B.S. emailed me—in despair. Working with a

detailed synopsis I had provided, she was having no success putting together a more streamlined

synopsis of the book for the agent submissions, “the reason being that everything I extract from

what you have written and from my ‘grazing’ of the ms itself is that this is beautifully written

and full of great characters, but it isn't the book I want to believe it is - the book you want me to

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 213

believe it is - an adult novel with a 15 year old protagonist.  What I keep finding is a coming of

age story (your original description) which makes it the Young Adult novel I originally pegged it

as being.” Moreover, in lamenting the lack of an “adult dramatic core” and “heightened drama,”

such as one finds in To Kill A Mockingbird and The Catcher in the Rye, B.S. regretted that there

was “no trial/racism-and-other-prejudice-issues - Mockingbird - and none of the multi-layered

issues of veracity and meaning, not to mention insanity and homosexuality, that makes Catcher

the book that has come to occupy its place in the canon.”

This was nonsense, if not mind-numbingly stupid, on several levels. Because it is a coming-

of-age story, it is, by definition, a Young Adult novel? I thought we got past that notion (if it ever

existed) with Huckleberry Finn. And are Mockingbird and Catcher, whatever else they are, not

coming-of-age stories? To Kill A Mockingbird is Young Adult fiction because it’s often taught to

high school students? Does being taught perennially in tenth grade make Shakespeare’s Julius

Caesar Young Adult drama? The point is, coming-of-age stories deal with the transformation of

a protagonist from child-like innocence to adult awareness—not Young Adult awareness.

I should immediately have begun to question the competence of B.S. to represent the book I’d

written. There were other, related warning signs. For one thing, no reader would need to “graze”

on more than a paragraph or two to realize that she was reading a retrospective narrative. For

another, B.S. was stressing the criticality of the one element Lenore Raven and Rick Usher had

urged me no less emphatically to scrap. Finally, B.S. was citing as missing in action some of the

very issues that Not Fade Away raises in a major fashion—i.e. racism, anti-Semitism, insanity,

and homosexuality. Once again-- B.S. hadn’t read the book.

But she suggested right away that she might read it, with a view to maximizing presentation

of it as “potentially a terrific book.” In other words, she would recommend changes. Oh, and her

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 214

reading fee was $2,000, and she couldn’t read it until April, 2010. It was now November, 2009.

So I would wait in limbo a minimum of four months, but she needed the money right away “to

reserve the slot.”

Okay, I got it. Two things were in play here. One, of course, was money. But the other was no

less important. Inevitably, the proposed changes that would be the output of the review would

mean making the book something else, not to mention something else entirely. In short, make the

book not necessarily better, but make it more identifiably a genre piece.

I replied with a long email, declining the read by B.S. and making the case for my book’s

“adult dramatic core.” This apparently provided the effective synopsis that B.S. herself had been

unable to write, and she went forward with it. Two well-known agents rather quickly agreed to a

read. The first, J.K., accepted the read with misgivings, feeling that Not Fade Away was a

“small” book. Funny, it looked pretty much like any other volume of fiction to me. Be that as it

may, J.K. declined within a day or two, saying I was a “fine writer” but that the story didn’t

“engage” him. No engagement, no marriage. Who knew? Turns out, size is important.

So B.S. immediately sent the book to her own agent, M.R., “one of the best agents for fiction

in the US.” This was just before Christmas, 2009, and B.S. said she expected M.R. to read the

book by the first of the year. Happy New Year, Ron.

Uh, no. After that, I heard nothing. Not at the beginning of January or at any time during the

month. This wasn’t all that long a time except for what I’d been told to expect. I waited until the

end of the first week in February before emailing B.S. to request a status. No reply. After another

week, I sent a follow-up email. No reply. Another week, another follow-up email. To which I

finally received a response on February 25th.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 215

Hi, Ron.  I fully understand your frustration and I'm sorry if I did not get back to you

promptly on a previous e-mail.  I think I was waiting to talk to/hear from [MR].  Which

actually happened a few days ago.  She thinks you're a fine writer - no surprise there - but

that she could not place the ms.  As much a function of the brutal current market as

anything else.  I will have a think about where to go next overnight, and get some

additional contacts out there tomorrow - though I think it might be smarter to put the

choices and e-mails together tomorrow and actually send them on Monday.  Not everyone

picks up their business e-mail at home and that's where they're likely to be on a snowy

Friday afternoon in NYC.  At any rate I'll send you reports tomorrow and copy you in when

I send the e-mails.

The fact that M. R. had passed on the book was probably the least annoying feature of the

email. So where to begin? Beyond the concern I already had with B.S.’s lack of follow-up and

responsiveness, I was troubled by two things: first, the lack of any specifics. “As much the brutal

current marketplace as anything else” told me nothing to suggest that the read had even occurred.

When I considered the lack of information with the brazen casual indifference of the email’s tone

—“I think I was waiting to talk to/hear from [MR]”—I knew we were going nowhere. And I

suspected that we had been going nowhere for quite some time. Certainly since the time B.S. had

collected $725.00 from me and I had declined the $2,000 review.

Was this all a set-up aimed at extracting money from me? I have no way of knowing for sure,

hence the anonymity of initials. I do, however, know a few things.

Despite her statement in the email, B.S. did nothing to pinpoint or recommend any additional

agents. Nor did she respond to my request for more specifics about the two supposed reads. Nor

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 216

did she respond to my subsequent suggestions and questions about the path forward. Indeed, for

the next month, she responded to nothing except my statement that I didn’t think I’d received

value for my money and that I wasn’t willing simply to write it off. (Knowing that that was

exactly what I’d have to do.)

My decision to answer is based on a genuine desire to explain - though judging from the

tone of your recent messages, it's probably a lost cause.  You are undoubtedly a fine and a

talented writer.  And NOT FADE AWAY is a very good book.  My original concern was

that it might not be quite good enough - not as measured by intrinsic worth, but

by contemporary requirements - but your confidence and the quality of the writing

determined me to go ahead. 

So the end result of my experience with B.S. was clarification. Clarification, once and for all,

of the daunting, if not insurmountable, challenge the current marketplace presents to the

unpublished writer of literary fiction. In my long struggle to market my first novel, I have never

read a more absurd or a more revelatory statement than “NOT FADE AWAY is a very good

book.  My original concern was that it might not be quite good enough - not as measured by

intrinsic worth, but by contemporary requirements.” On the one hand, my novel is a very good

book. On the other, maybe not quite good enough. Let’s concede that just maybe a book may be

very good but not quite good enough, lacking in some way or other. Oh, but it’s intrinsically a

good book, which would seem to cancel out nicely the not quite good enough possibility. And

though there’s a small implication that my confidence in my book persuaded her to soldier on for

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 217

me—I made her take my $725.00 and represent me—she gives equal weight to “the quality of

the writing.”

So if Not Fade Away is still not good enough to publish, it’s because of something else—if

not something else entirely. Something called contemporary requirements.

And what might those be? Despite B.S.’s lack of informed specifics and despite the fib about

her “original concern”—it wasn’t about very-good-but-not-good-enough, but about how to

categorize the book—I did have a clear understanding of what she meant. Contemporary

requirements define not what a first novel can be, but what it must be if it is to be commercially

publishable now (when, according to a 21010 article in the New Yorker, the publishing industry

is trending toward e-books.) It doesn’t matter, finally, whether that novel is good or bad, whether

my novel is good or bad. The problem goes beyond any question of literary merit or even of

whether the book has previously been self-published. It goes beyond any question of the author’s

competence, craftsmanship, ego, or narcissistic sense of specialness.

The shortest, easiest definition is to say that to meet contemporary requirements the novel

must be genre fiction. That is true enough, and, to repeat, it is one explanation of B.S.’s attempt

to categorize Not Fade Away: in her taxonomy, it’s a coming-of-age story, therefore Young

Adult fiction, and publishable only if so classified and marketed. Based on all the feedback,

positive and negative, that I have received about my book, I think it neither unreasonable nor

immodest to say that if it were a piece of genre fiction, it would already be commercially

published. I will go even further and say that if it were the Young Adult novel B.S. thought it

was, it would already be commercially published. (Interestingly, as I write, a brief item in

Entertainment Weekly observing the fiftieth anniversary of To Kill A Mockingbird notes that if

that novel, as well as The Catcher in the Rye, were to have a hope of publication today, they

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 218

would almost certainly be classified as Young Adult fiction. So this tells me that B.S. was being,

at best, disingenuous in telling me that my novel—because of something it lacked—was YA

fiction rather than that it had to be YA fiction in order to be marketable.) But the genre

requirement is not the full, insidious truth about the contemporary marketplace or the most

dramatic illustration of it. To approach that truth, it’s necessary to ask what a first novel must be

if it’s not genre fiction.

Obviously, based on the comment of the agent J.K., one requirement is that a first novel

shouldn’t be small. That would appear to mean the book should be big, anything in between

being insufficient for a first novel that is literary fiction—insufficient even, apparently, for a

publisher’s midlist, where the less than spectacular sellers traditionally reside. Question is, what

does big mean? Pretty clearly, it doesn’t mean long, though Karl Marlantes best-selling first

novel, Matterhorn, clocks in at six hundred pages. Nevertheless, that book easily qualifies as big

because it’s a Vietnam War novel. Fairly recent history, the horror of war, big themes. Strong

miniseries potential (no surprise that the author’s agent is at ICM). Heavy artillery, thunderous

explosions, bodies blown apart. Ditto in many respects Julie Orringer’s The Invisible Bridge,

with the added fillip of the Holocaust.

In contrast, in a follow-up email, markedly defensive in tone, B.S. reported to me that M.R.

had said my book was “too quiet for the market.” So a book must be big or loud or, preferably,

both, as Matterhorn is. These features are so in evidence that a blurb on the back of the dust

jacket is safe in describing it as “a timeless work of literary fiction.” Ah, but is it? Just as the

coming-of-age story is a genre, so is the war novel. (One more time, hold that thought. War

novel, with or without Holocaust, is a market-friendly genre; coming-of-age must morph into

YA to become market-friendly)

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 219

Of course, both agents were absolutely dead-on right where Not Fade Away is concerned. It is

neither big nor loud. It doesn’t have a high-octane plot, and it isn’t “edgy” (making Lenore

Raven right as well). It takes place fifty years ago in a setting that is neither exotic nor glamorous

and with a protagonist who, though sympathetic and winning, appears more ordinary than he is. I

am also the first to admit that Andy’s apparent “ordinariness” is another possible drawback, as he

develops fully over a trilogy rather than a single novel. More so than in the two remaining novels

of my Andiad, all the big events of the outside world—the first stirrings of America’s tragic

Vietnam adventure, for example—hover at the periphery and the issues they reflect are, for the

most part, raised obliquely or implicitly. In this the novel differs from Kathryn Stockett’s The

Help; set in the 1960s, it has the more explicit hook—a big issue, big as Vietnam—of the fully

emerging Civil Rights Movement and the cachet of “multiculturalism.” Indeed the notion of

implicitness or obliquity is essential to both the manner and the theme of my book, and may be

the ultimate source of my marketing problem with it, especially because, stylistically, the book is

deceptively accessible.

Being fundamentally concerned with “the lie that dwells at the heart of things,” it deals with

learning to perceive and understand what is not directly stated or acknowledged. In any case,

there’s no arguing the fact that Not Fade Away is a small, quiet story of love, death, emotional

and sexual duplicity, insanity, racism, anti-Semitism, thievery, physical and psychological

brutality, the impact of the past on the present, and the destructive power of lies. Because it isn’t

a genre piece, it lacks zombies, vampires, werewolves, witches, warlocks, wizards, angels, the

Tribulation, or the expectation of the Rapture. In the twilight of literary fiction, Jane Austen must

consort with the living dead, and Abraham Lincoln moonlight as Van Helsing to be

commercially viable.

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 220

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (Seth Grahame-Smith, 2009), Sense and Sensibility and Sea

Monsters (Ben H. Winters, 2009), Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer (Seth Grahame-Smith,

2010): one would like to regard these works as playfully as they seem intended. Who knew

Honest Abe was splitting rails for more than log cabins and firewood? Why wasn’t there a play

and later a movie called Abe Lincoln in Transylvania? Maybe you have to be a frustrated serious

novelist at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century to see something in these books

more sinister than mere American vampirism or zombies roaming the Home Counties of

England.(In this summer of 2010, we also have Jane Slayre and Little Women and Werewolves.)

For these books have it both ways. They not only send up classic literature and trivialize

mainstream history, but also the genre that makes the joke possible. That genre’s success and

domination of the literary marketplace reveal several interesting things about the nature of that

marketplace, the reading culture, and readers themselves. Intentionally or not, these books both

define and legitimize the transformation that has occurred in all three. They go to the heart of

contemporary requirements—why they are contemporary and why they are requirements.

Literary fiction and genre fiction have always coexisted. Are the recent best-selling books

I’ve singled out any different than Fielding’s satire of Richardson’s Pamela in Shamela and

Joseph Andrews? Do they differ from the gothic novels wildly popular in Europe and America in

the latter decades of the eighteenth century? Yes and no, with emphasis on the latter. For one

thing, more than two centuries of novel-writing and novel-reading have occurred in between.

What is being parodied is not a new form, but, in two of the first three books I cited, classic

expressions of the form. Indeed, all three are such, granting Bram Stoker’s Dracula the status of

a genre classic. For another, since at least the time of Henry James (who was Stoker’s

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 221

contemporary), the chasm between the two novelistic paths—literary fiction and genre fiction—

has steadily widened.

Literary fiction is literature, and it is art, like poetry. Genre fiction may or may not be popular

art, but it isn’t literary art. It is essentially and unchangeably escapist. And with Dracula, the

apparent exception, one can argue that it was our old friend the movies that have made it an

enduring classic. For all the experimentation and innovation that have occurred in the novel,

classic fiction has been either realistic—“a very minute fidelity, not merely to the possible, but to

the probable and ordinary course of man’s experience,” as Hawthorne states in the Preface to The

House of the Seven Gables—or it has attempted to broaden the scope of the term realism. Pace

Virginia Woolf, it has made room for both Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown. Hence, the Great

Divide between it and genre fiction.

So what is going on now, as indicated by the three primary examples I’ve chosen? The first

two seem to celebrate the necessary morphing of literary fiction into genre fiction. Unlike genre

fiction, literary fiction is changeable. It can be made into something else and, if necessary,

something else entirely. Given the third example, so can history. And the common denominator

that links history and the novel is—reality. Both literary realism and historical inquiry concern

themselves with humanity’s life in time. As Shakespeare says of the theater in Hamlet, its

purpose is to show “the very age and body of his time his form and pressure,” its players “the

abstract and brief chronicles of the time.” The ghost of Hamlet’s father notwithstanding. and in

this the play is both a transitional and transformative work, “the very age and body of his time”

is natural rather than supernatural—secular, skeptical, human.

All three books, however, reflect and describe a different phenomenon in contemporary

popular culture. The most commercially successful fiction, which is almost invariably genre

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 222

fiction, no longer deals, even superficially, with real people living real lives. Good and evil in

such fiction, their gradations as features and indices of human character and its motivation, exist

to serve the plotting and action of supernatural, often horrific entertainment. I offered the

Hawthorne quote above, because he was explicitly distinguishing the novel from romance. What

the contemporary market emphasizes is an amalgam of both literary senses of the word

“romance”—the unreal (the “non-realistic” Hawthorne sense) and the love story. Readers have

come to expect nothing more because they are generally, and increasingly, offered nothing more.

But the counterargument will claim that this is what the majority of fiction-buying readers

want. That is the argument of the Howtu’s of Wannabeland, chiefly the agents and the

acquisition editors for the publishers. It is, however, a claim that immediately raises two

questions. Why is it what readers want? And is that all they want?

The answer to the first question could be a book in itself, so let’s accept as a given the pure,

thrilling, chilling entertainment value of such fiction; these stories bring it on in all sorts of ways.

To one degree or another, that is what all genre fiction, with its emphasis on plot and action,

attempts to do. That is one of the reasons for the second question. As to a more profound reason

for their appeal, let’s pose a plausible generalization in lieu of that separate book. The reason lies

in the union of horror and romance, the potent mix of the supernatural and the simultaneous

promise and threat of immortality.

These stories satisfy the yearnings for both equality and perfect love of adolescent girls of any

age. Like all fiction, like all art, they simplify reality, but they simplify it in the extreme—in the

extreme even for genre fiction. It is a fantasy of empowerment and fulfillment, independence

and dependence, selfhood and commitment, all in dynamic, kinetic balance, exciting, dangerous,

fulfilling, and utterly fake. Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy kicking the asses of the living dead

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 223

in perfect partnership. Is there any need to go any further than that and speculate that the zombies

and vampires are a metaphor for cells of sub-human terrorists functioning at large in post-9/11

America? Or maybe they represent the hordes of illegal immigrants breaching our ever more

porous borders. Or maybe—go ahead, invent some other paranoid fear. (Yeah, I know, there are

“good” vampires too, as in the Twilight series, and one can speculate endlessly about what’s up

with them. Hmm, let’s see: superpowers, immortality, no STDs. Is it possible that guys read the

Twilight books too? As Danielle Steele once remarked of her own romance novels, her sales

couldn’t possibly be what they are if only women read them.)

Despite conventional wisdom and protestations to the contrary, the driver for this argument is

not sales experience, but risk aversion, just as it is in the mainstream movie business. This type

of decision-making rests on a pair of flawed and fatal assumptions (and fatal not only to the

aspiring serious first novelist). The first is that if the fiction-reading public fails to get what it

wants, that audience will continue to shrink until it disappears altogether. The second treats a

target audience as if it were the entire audience. For example, the Entertainment Weekly piece I

referenced notes that “while overall U.S. book sales fell 3.3 percent in 2009, sales of young-adult

and children’s titles rose 2.3 percent.” Now maybe, to the publishing powers-that-be, a swing of

5.6 percent is astronomical, but to this business-challenged writer that is a little over 1/20th of the

reading public in this country. Should five or six readers out of every hundred drive the entire

marketplace? This is not even to mention that the percentages cited in EW lump children’s and

YA fiction together and reference both fiction and non-fiction. What are the real and pertinent

numbers? (I ask this knowing that, taking fiction alone, they may not be favorable to my cause.

On the other hand, the numbers are also probably skewed by the massive sales of the Harry

Potter books to both children and young adults.)

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 224

In any case, as I noted in chapter 19, such thinking is typical of the movie business, which

practices the same blinkered devotion to genre. Literary successes such as The Help and

Matterhorn, however, prove that this is not the case, even as Oscar-winning movies like The

Hurt Locker do. There is a contemporary audience for any good book, any intrinsically good

book, any intrinsically good first novel, if agents, editors, and publishers will give that audience

what it is seeking. Not instead of what the target audience wants, but as well as what the target

audience—call it the post-Harry Potter generation of Young Adults about to come of age—has

made a success. And as with moviegoers, these readers seldom form a discrete audience; to the

extent that they make a target, they are moving, shape-shifting one. The same adolescent girls

who devour the Twilight series also tend to be those readers fondest of Wuthering Heights. As

Jane Smiley notes, they are apt to be fonder of the novel at that age than when they reread it as

adults. Heathcliff doesn’t have to be a literal vampire to induce adolescent swooning, whatever

one makes of him metaphorically. I should not need to transform Andy Lerner into a Jewish

vampire whose Van Helsing is Simon Wiesenthal wielding a Star of David rather than a cross.

Nevertheless, the raison d’etre of genre fiction, from a marketing standpoint, is the notion of

the discrete, niche audience. Combine this notion with that of there being only one discrete,

niche audience, and the result is deadly to the prospects of literary fiction.

A local situation offers a powerful demonstration of what I mean. In Houston, where I once

again reside, there is a bookstore called Murder by the Book. As the name indicates, it is a

mystery bookstore such as exists in most big cities. It is a well-run business operation that

understands its customers and caters to them. It is a pleasant, congenial environment that

happens also to be a very complete bookstore in the sense that the terms “mystery” and “murder”

encompass every divagation and permutation of the terms, including true crime, horror, spy

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 225

novels, you-name-it. Hardcover, paperback, new and used, first and rare editions. The bookstore

also sponsors several author talks/book signings a week. I have attended those of Daniel Silva,

Peter Lovesey, Louise Penny, Joseph Kanon, Jacqueline Winspear, and James Benn. I was, for

various reasons, unable to attend for Sue Grafton, Michael Connolly, Michael Harvey, and Cara

Black. You get the picture. I shop there, and I spend a lot of time there (particularly on blazing

hot summer afternoons). I like the place a lot, and I spend mo0ney there.

So my attitude toward this exemplary and very successful mystery bookshop is anything but

elitist, contemptuous, or dismissive. But there is a problem.

It is this. One has the distinct sense, particularly at the book signings, that this ultra-large

“mystery” genre is the only game in town. To grant the obvious—the books for sale and authors

who appear will belong to this niche. But the well-attended signings suggest that the prosperous,

steadily buying, and voraciously reading crowd reads nothing but mysteries. The conversations

struck up or overheard deal only with mysteries read and favorite mystery authors. The questions

asked of the visiting authors deal naturally enough with their work, their series, their life

experience and their experience as writers. They not only address these writers as if their work

matters—which it is easy to concede without asking why it matters—they address them as if

their work collectively forms the only body of literature in existence or worth publishing and

reading. The general assumption at the recent Jacqueline Winspear signing I attended was that

her work says something profound about the First World War rather than that, as Ms. Winspear

points out repeatedly, Maisie Dobbs has deep blue eyes and generally wears a cloche hat. The

author has a big, compelling theme, if not an altogether fresh one, but any serious treatment is

made moot by genre convention. Nice lady, reasonably good at what she does, but as I suggested

earlier, Pat Barker she ain’t. But the detective novelist Benjamin Black is John Banville, the

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 226

British author of the Man Booker prizewinning novel, The Sea. And only as Benjamin Black is

he admitted to Murder By the Book. John Banville doesn’t exist.

Okay, MBTB is a particular venue. I get that. You wouldn’t expect to engage in or overhear a

conversation about Homeric parallels in Ulysses (a big, compelling topic, if not an altogether

fresh one) or the pastiche of Victorian poetry in A.S. Byatt’s Possession. You wouldn’t expect

the store to stock winners of the Man Booker Prize. But I can’t shake the eerie, unsettling feeling

that the Gresham’s Law of literary art I posited in chapter 19 has proved itself at Murder by the

Book in Houston, Texas. Somehow John Banville knows this. His decision to publish detective

fiction pseudonymously not only reflects the law; it reinforces and perpetuates it as well.

Though a Republican bastion, the base of the Bush family , Houston is not a cultural or

literary desert, particularly in the area encompassing Rice University and the Museum District

where MBTB thrives and from whence it derives a good portion of its clientele. If there are book

signings by serious novelists, they must be on the Rice campus or at the University of Houston,

or at one of the other local colleges, because they don’t occur at any of the local Borders or

Barnes &Noble stores or even, except infrequently, at the few remaining independent bookstores

in this, the fourth largest city in the country.

I want to clarify something about genre fiction. In this book I have said that my first novel is a

coming-of-age story and that coming-of-age is a genre. I’ve remarked earlier in this chapter that

if my novel were a genre piece it would already be commercially published. Those two sentences

seem to contradict each other. Ah, but they don’t. There is genre, and then there is genre.

Coming-of-age is a literary genre rather than a marketing genre. Guess which one is all-

important to the Howtu’s of Wannabeland. Coming-of-age fiction as a marketing genre is

deemed Young Adult fiction. It exists not in terms of any intrinsic characteristics or quality, but

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 227

strictly in reference to the target audience. So perhaps B.S. knew something I didn’t. What I do

know in the case of coming-of-age stories is that they must be designated Young Adult fiction

not necessarily because of what they are, but because of what the Howtu’s insist is the one and

only target audience for those stories.

The point is, the marketing distinctions are both artificial and suspect. Though no one will

admit it, no one really knows what will work. In a certain loose but essential sense, even the

distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction is artificial. Novel-writing and novel-

reading are profoundly democratic endeavors. It is novel-publishing that is not. All novels are

detective stories, in that the both detective and novelist construct a narrative and provide a

resolution. The difference is that the detective novelist, the genre novelist almost without

exception, writes the same novel over and over and over again—and, as I’ve noted previously,

almost invariably in conformance to reader expectations.

This type of fiction is fundamentally different even from the novel sequences of classic or

literary fiction. The reason isn’t lack of “seriousness” or lack of imagination or ineffective

execution per se, but the repetition that drives genre fiction. There is a no dramatic and structural

arc to the genre series, the imaginative pattern of developing action and changing character that

define the serious novel sequence regardless of the number of novels in it. It is there in the

family trilogies of Arnold Bennett and William Faulkner, the multiple, related trilogies of John

Galsworthy, Anthony Powell, and Philip Roth, and the longer novel sequences of Proust, Ford

Maddox Ford, and C.P. Snow. It is less true of novels linked merely by recurring characters or a

single, distinctive locale—Balzac’s Comedie Humaine, Zola’s Rougon-Macquart novels,

Trollope’s Barsetshire series or his Palliser novels, Hardy’s Wessex novels or Faulkner’s

Yoknapatawpha novels as an oeuvre of which the Snopes trilogy is a part. I would suggest that

Don’t Tell Me Your Wife Likes It 228

my three Andy Lerner novels fall into the first category, though I’m not also suggesting a

necessary qualitative difference between the two groups.

Only rarely does genre fiction aspire to, much less achieve, such literary artistry. Imagination

alone doesn’t suffice or Stephen King would be a great novelist—a serious novelist. Nor does the

creation of an entire fictional world, however vital, coherent, and unique, quite mitigate genre

requirements. Witness the Harry Potter series, in which the problem with J.K. Rowling’s

impressive fantasy saga isn’t nearly as much execution as it is categorization. It’s an odd, but not

entirely surprising, irony that because the Harry Potter books are regarded as children’s and/or

Young Adult fiction, they get less than their due as mainstream literature. They remain genre

fiction by default, with the addition burden that their very commercial success, the childish

(literally) demand for the next novels in the series, and the pressure of an ongoing movie

franchise are reflected in occasional sloppy writing and, more seriously, five of seven books that

are considerably longer than they need to be. This is not the case with Tolkien’s Lord of the

Rings trilogy, perhaps because it’s a shorter work of fantasy, it antedated the movie versions by

several decades, and it was originally more of a cult success rather than a widespread

commercial phenomenon. The trilogy, originally popular among college students also falls less

readily into the kiddie lit or YA category. Then, too, it has a poetic, symbolic, and spiritual

dimension to it that the Potter books lack.

Bottom line, though: genre fiction is fun, and it’s easy. Literary fiction may or may not be.

Most isn’t, but Not Fade Away is. It is fun, it is easy, and it is serious. What’s not to like,

whether or not you happen to be married to me?