A Cat on the Piano Keys
The Unique Ways Authors John K Danenbarger and Sheldon Greene Approach Novel Writing
John K Danenbarger: I am very curious to know how long it takes you to “transition” between novels. Or said in another way, you need to let the old novel go before you can create the new story and put it down in writing. How long does that take you?
Sheldon Greene: The issue of transition between novels is one that I have never contemplated. There is no question that I approach them one at a time. This is a linear process. Four of them are related — the American Quartet. Three of those are narrated by the same person. Certainly, three of the four grew out of one theme. There is a sequence of Jewish Indians in the first novel, Lost and Found. The second, The Seed Apple, deals with Jewish Indians who migrated to the Southern California desert in Pre-Columbian times. Other than the memoir that is encapsulated in the book, it is set in the near present, the Cold War era. The fourth, finished but not yet published, Tamar, is the back story set in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. The most recent novel, Waiting for the Messiah, has nothing to do with that subject. It returns to the site of the first novel, and has the same narrator and some of the characters.
As for the other novels, they are all different. I start with the kernel of an idea, a seed, then let it grow. Once a manuscript is in draft, I let the process of working on a new theme flow organically. If the idea intrigues me, I let it evolve. I have no problem with keeping more than one ball in the air. I might be fiddling with revisions on one book and masticating a story line for another.
What about you?
John: Well, so far, my novel, like Gone with the Wind, is a singular novel, but I brought up the question because I am told that if I don’t write another novel, my lonesome novel will be gone with the wind. I have another novel brewing, but it has been difficult to get my mind off the first one. Obviously, we are in agreement that the new seed needs to grow. I think, also, that the new idea needs to blossom and become something so beautiful that I cannot help but write the story…what I would call nothing else than enthusiasm.
But also, almost every writer I know also states that it is important to begin writing, because the author really does not know how the story will develop until the characters are developed and in action. I found that to be true. Do you agree?
Sheldon: No. I don’t agree. I think that novels that start that way don’t necessarily end up as a complete tapestry. It’s the proverbial cat on the piano keys. It doesn’t end up as a Sonata by Chopin even though an occasional chord is promising. I like to know where I am going before I turn on the ignition. That means progressing from idea, to story, to plot and character development, and background. As for stand-alone vs. series, the chances that your work will be forgotten is significant statistically, in any event. Of course, it’s great to capitalize on momentum but serendipity will play a greater role than your talent. Let the process of finding the next project be playful and fun. Don’t worry about the result. Let surprise be your companion. The exception might be the writer who has a formula where he likes the characters and can put them in another situation — the police procedural for example, or the special ops guy. Don’t look to the outcome, enjoy the process of getting there.
John: Yeah, I am afraid we talked past each other on that one. Obviously, also in my opinion, the writer must plan out the story as best he/she can. In fact, the plot should go from A to B as planned. What I meant to say was that once the character begins to develop, the writer cannot force the character to act in a certain direction without that character becoming fake or the writer ending in a block. To get around this problem, it may take many rewrites over a longer period of time.
And I agree that the writer needs to let the story develop in his/her mind. I think that is the kid in me who always fantasized. I have found that the story even develops while I sleep. I end up rushing in the morning to note down these thoughts.
I was fascinated with your statement that actually think about more than one story line at a time. Does this mean that you also have ideas that developed into short stories (as it has with me)? Or do you put them all into a storage bin for later use?
And this leads to the question of story themes which in your case seem to circle around Judaism, but at very interesting angles. It seems you are trying to show something, i.e. to enlighten the reader. Am I wrong?
Sheldon: You raise three issues; character, execution, and themes. As for character, I create the personality before I start to write. That includes biography, signature characteristics. Then I let them live within the broad confines of the plot. No question they sometimes do things that I hadn’t planned or contemplated. The mystery of writing is that they come alive in my imagination. I become the medium.
As for sequencing, I might get an idea and jot it down and come back to it. I have no problem with thinking about multiple ideas or themes. It’s just my nature. Yes, I’ve turned a lot of them into short stories.
As for the themes, no doubt the Jewish culture has been the principle source of thematic material, but in a larger existential framework. And that subject has, to no extent, circumscribed my choice. After the Parch, set 40 years in the future in California after the dissolution of the United States, has no Jewish content. Pursuit of Happiness, set in the American Revolution deals in part with the Jewish population of the islands in the Caribbean, but the hero is a Quaker artist. So Jewish culture has been source material, information that is accessible, familiar, even lodged in my memory from personal experience. My first novel, not yet published, derives from my experience in Israel, before during and after the 1967 War when Israel united Jerusalem.
John: So where are your short stories? Do you bother submitting them and, if so, who-what-where-and-when?
Sheldon: I have sent out a number of them to mostly online mags and even the New Yorker. I got a nice letter from Roger Angel once but nothing got published. I love to write but hate marketing.
John: The competition is huge as everyone and his/her sister sends in their manuscripts. I read somewhere the huge number that The New Yorker gets per day. It made it obvious that connections were the only way to get published there. I have had a short story published once. No, not in The New Yorker, (I have submitted stories there) but getting published at all is quite a feat and takes way too much time.
I have been writing since I was in high school and have been driven to write from something inside me which I cannot define. I knew I wanted to be a writer and even took creative writing courses at the university. But I did not dare to write a serious novel until I was much older because 1) I never thought that I had enough experience to write anything interesting, 2) I found writing takes such concentration that I never had that undisturbed space for concentration until recent years, and 3) I was encouraged by fans of my short stories to write something longer.
I noticed that you have written over several years, but what got you going in the first place?
Shelden: I started in law school and never stopped. I have whimsically likened it to a desire to re-make the World; a God complex. It was an escape from reality. There was a parallel effort in my law work. I took on issues that were national in scope. I suppose that creativity is the operative element in my motivation. Why are some people impelled to make art, or write music, or design buildings, or plan communities? I suspect that it’s brain wiring, some genetic predisposition. Whatever the source, writing has given me pleasure and is a meaningful component of my life. And it is slightly comforting to know that the novels will remain after I am gone.
John: Exactly. Writing literally makes me happy. In fact, I have come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that cultural arts are what separate humans from other animals, are what make humans better humans, and what makes me happy. If I see a great play performance, movie, opera, or art exhibit, I come away feeling a sense of joy. And my own writing gives me great satisfaction. And I would concur completely with your statement about being comforting to know that the stories will remain after I am gone, as a small marker.
The other day I read this article about admitting to being wrong and commented that it is missing a main point. The article is stating that a person must admit to him/herself that he/she could be wrong about a belief or certainty. My point is that right and wrong are subjective and that is exactly the problem. Of course, the more ignorant a person is, the more he/she sees the world as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. The more one thinks, the grayer it all becomes.
Example? I worked as a stockbroker for fifteen years and was proud of my work in that I managed to do my customers well (much of it luck because of the bull market). My clients were sad to see me go and complained about it. So I did the right thing for them, right? But the stock market does not produce anything other than wealth and much of the activity on the stock markets is tomfoolery if not criminal. But even if I was able to avoid the negative material and guide my clients away from it, the whole idea of a stock market is morally questionable depending on how you view it. So I was possibly wrong to do the right thing? Of course, I realized that I am mixing up morally wrong with scientifically wrong, but often it is difficult to find the dividing line.
Maybe a better example is my leaving a previous marriage. I think I was right to do that; my ex does not.
In my novel Entanglement: Quantum and Otherwise, the eight characters are both right and wrong in different degrees (from the major to the minor). Obviously, that is what makes a novel’s flawed characters. But because I had so many characters, I could show the sundry degrees of right and wrong. I left out religious condemnation on purpose since, in my mind, religions were and are created in an attempt to systematize and codify human behavior, and, despite claims otherwise, have little influence on the average being.
Sheldon: I just read the article which dealt with scientific arrogance and humility: Falling in love with your creations. Alexander Popes’s Essay on Man, includes the following: “Sole judge of truth, in constant error hurled…” It is difficult to preserve an “open mind.” Our mind is full of short cuts, conclusions that we have arrived at based upon our subjective view of reality. Even if we aren’t attached to them, they filter our vision of the present. Scientific method requires constant challenge of what we have previously accepted. And unfortunately the emotional component of our capacity to observe, colors what we perceive. How do we overcome this astigmatic view? Mainly by being conscious of it. If we can’t eliminate it, we can certainly ameliorate its impact. Add the semantic limitation. How do you describe a fire? Even a video lacks the experiential dimension.
John: Yes, I have read the same article. I think the answer can only be, as you said, mainly being conscious of it and never stop being curious about why we believe what we believe. I can’t help but think that this is somehow connected with my repeated aphorism: You never stop learning until you are dead, but you can be dead before you die.
But, yes, we definitely filter our beliefs, mainly to protect our dignity and not run ourselves into a ditch of depression. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, thinks at a different level at any one time. When we are isolated, we tend to challenge our filters and that can be why too many people I know try to fill silence with external or internal noise, sort of like “Badda, badda, badda, I can’t hear me.” And in this way, these people never need to challenge their beliefs or the filters than surround them.
But why are we off on this tangent?
