This below is a guest post by the author of the novel IMMORTAL that I discussed in my previous post here on January 18, 2011.
Of course I know he didn't intend to write an Action Romance or any kind of romance. I understood what he was doing, and I intended to make it clear that he did achieve that objective. My discussion and dissection of his novel is a writing lesson for those attempting to do something entirely foreign to Doucette's genre. I believe readers of this blog who love Romance and perhaps are writing Romance will find reading IMMORTAL to be a worthwhile experience simply because it is so far away from the Romance genre.
My personal reading tastes are broader than my readership's, or the intended readership for my professional review column. In fact, you might say I'm a professional reader. Nothing that is well written will fail to rivet my attention. I am a lifelong devotee of fanfiction. I even love badly written or "Mary Sue" fanfic!
At the end of his guest post, Doucette asks me a question. I shall answer. I highly recommend that you read what he says here carefully.
I’m not certain how to begin a response to a critique that simultaneously describes Immortal as a chore to read and as something that could not be put down.
But I will try.
I’m going to start with the bottommost point, which is that this story should not belong to Adam the immortal narrator, but to Clara, a character that appears in roughly 1/4 of the book.
There are many things I could say about this suggestion, but to begin with the most obvious: it’s not her story, and I’m not interested enough in telling her story to build the novel around her. What I was interested in—what I am still interested in—is what it might really be like to live through the breadth of human history. If I wanted to tell that story through the eyes of a twenty-something year old college student, I would have written a different book.
(Read about what kind of book Immortal IS at http://genedoucette.me/immortal )
The description for that hypothetical book would have been “pretty young college student discovers an immortal man, and is pulled into a secret world of intrigue and danger. And she may be falling in love…” I expect the most common response to the description would be either, A: “oh; another one of those” or B: “is that the new Twilight book??”
This holds no interest for me.
Lichtenberg seemed to want me to write a different kind of book entirely, but this is not a romance, or even a love story. It’s also not about the moment in the life of a very old man in which he found his One True Love. It isn’t that the love story was given short shrift, it’s that there is no love story, triangle or otherwise. There is sex, and there is sexuality, but in this part of the life of my jaded protagonist, he is not coming across a One True anything. Or, to be more precise, he has come across several One True Loves in his lifetime, but this is not one of those times.
Adam is of course capable of love, and of caring about the people around him. Despite his age, he is very much human and very much a part of the human race. That means, like anyone, he has defense mechanisms to protect himself that leave him emotionally closed off much of the time. He is also not particularly good at talking about his feelings—unreliable narrator—so his actions are sometimes more telling than his words.
(Some words from Adam:
So knowing what this book is not—a romance about a girl helping a sexy but mysterious immortal man—let’s talk about what it is.
As much as is possible I tried to put myself in the position of someone who had actually lived through history. I used “magical” characters because they made his history more interesting, and because the idea of playing with fantasy tropes and then stripping away all of the magic to see what was left appealed to me. But at the very core of it is Adam’s voice and his experiences. I had to make a number of discrete decisions and forced definitive limitations on myself—for instance, writing an action novel in first person is a real pain in the ass—in order to tell the story. I also had to decide what KIND of person, and personality, would be capable of living that long without dying accidentally or on purpose.
(One of my biggest beefs with the modern “romantic vampire” character is that they all act like twenty year olds. I think it’s perfectly possible for a person whose personality is stuck somewhere between Act III and Act V of Romeo and Juliet to become a vampire, but I find it incredibly unlikely for them to have survived beyond a couple of decades. It is not a survivor ethos.)
And so Adam’s personality—which Lichtenberg has lauded—is the result. A sarcastic, sometimes unpleasant, very clever man who tells the story of his life with a Raymond Chandler-esque bitterness.
(What others have said about Adam: http://genedoucette.me/media/ )
More generally, I find the points about convention and structure to be a bit strange. Why would I take my unconventionally structured, unconventional story and turn the whole thing around so that it’s about a different character, has none of what makes it compelling—the narrator’s voice—and jam it into a structure that so very many other novels already adhere to? At some point it stops being THIS novel and becomes someone else’s novel, and we’re about three steps past that.
(My discussion of genres: http://genedoucette.me/2010/10/07/on-genres/ )
“You have a lovely cat,” Lichtenberg seem to be saying, “and he would be even more perfect if he was a horse.”
Some other points:
--Adam’s unlikability. Lichtenberg comments that I have given myself an uphill battle in attempting to tell a story from the perspective of an unlikable character. My problem with this is I don’t think Adam’s unlikable. I never have. He is complicated, bitter, and drunk through much of the first part of the book, but I don’t believe him to be unlikable. Yet this is not the only place I have seen this comment, so I don’t know what more to say about it than “all right, but you still liked him enough to keep reading.”
(I discuss his apparent unlikability more in: http://genedoucette.me/2010/10/22/mary-sues-and-assholes/)
--Drinking. I thought the comment that Adam was unlikable specifically for enabling two college students by buying them alcohol was very telling. The implication being he’s buying for minors and that they would not have otherwise had access to alcohol. We are talking about COLLEGE here; this is a preposterous suggestion. There is also nothing in the text whereby Adam “keeps them drunk”, nor does he ply them with alcohol. He is not recklessly manipulating mortals into drinking with him; he’s drinking with mortals who are inclined to drink as well. As he says on multiple occasions, his preference is to hang out with bar drunks and college students. It’s a social thing.
A larger point would be that, again, this is a man who has lived an incredibly long time. It is only in the last hundred years or so that alcohol has developed a (deserved, I admit) stigma, and he was drunk for most of them and probably didn’t notice. In earlier times—one need not go back far at all, actually—drinking regularly and in large quantities was very common. His interest in drinking is perfectly in keeping with his character.
--Murder. It was hard to tell whether the “gritty realism” point was a critique or merely a comment, but I thought it worth pointing out that if one establishes a character that began life as an African tribesman sixty thousand years ago, one has to reconcile oneself with the fact that the character is a murderer. And again, look at the historical record of the human species: the remarkable thing is not that Adam has, can, and will commit murder to protect himself, but that he hold the lives of anyone other than himself to any degree of esteem. The idea that all life is sacred is a very new concept.
--The third act. I disagree with the suggestion that the switch from past tense to present tense is jarring and unnecessary. I think it’s fundamentally necessary if only for the obvious fact that the italicized sections at the beginning of each of the chapters in the rest of the book are all in present tense. More centrally, I find that the present tense makes the action in the final act much more palpable and direct. You already know, in every other part of the book, that Adam survives, because he’s telling the story from a safe distance. In present tense, while Adam is still narrating, some of that safety net is removed. It was something that began as a logical decision—because of the chapter pieces—that became what I consider a happy secondary result: a more gripping ending.
--Saving the cat. It should have been obvious to anyone reading the prologue—in which Adam recounts a time, eons ago, when he hunted and killed a large cat—that I’m thumbing my nose at this convention as well.
--Convoluted, expository lumps. I’m not really sure what to say about these comments. It’s a story about an immortal man told by an immortal man, with small historical tales nested inside of a larger present-day story arc. It’s not convoluted; Adam just has a lot to say.
Lichtenberg pointed out that there were things Adam talked about that she didn’t need to know, using the Egypt flashback as an example. The point of the novel was NOT to solve the overarching mystery of who is after Adam—which is revealed roughly the halfway point anyway—or necessarily even how he escapes. It is ONE point, but it is not THE point. THE point is, he’s an immortal man, he has some stories, and he’s sharing those stories. The Egypt passage was pertinent because it was on the subject of why he has trouble trusting women, and he’d just been put into a situation where he didn’t know if he could trust the woman he was sleeping with. It was a pertinent story, because it was a developing characteristic of Adam, and Adam IS the story. (And as a spoiler aside, the discussion of cultures revering men as gods is pertinent to Hellenic Immortal, the second book.)
In conclusion, I’d like to steal one of your points: look at the title. This book is called Immortal because it is about the immortal man telling the story. He may be complicated and some readers may not like him, but this is first and foremost a character study of someone who is, in my mind, an anthropomorphic representation of mankind. (And I mean man- not humankind.) The book has its digressions and its discursions, it may be messy at times, but it’s a compelling, interesting story that is difficult to put down.
So let me throw this back to Jacqueline Lichtenberg: in our past discussions you have lauded the idea of innovation and finding new ways to tell stories in fiction. You have been handed a book that ignores very nearly every convention yet manages to be addictively readable, and your response to this is to suggest what I think is a tired, conventional story I couldn’t even imagine WANTING to write. You clearly enjoyed the read. Why are you back-tracking?
----------END GENE DOUCETTE'S GUEST POST------------
Why am I "back-tracking?"
Of course, it doesn't seem that way to me. I would never do such a thing. I am all about the future, not the past.
You executed the "form" you chose for this novel perfectly (the pre-chapter inserts from captivity; the joining of the two plot threads.)
You applied that form expertly to the story you wanted to tell.
My judgment is (and there's a lot of taste involved in this) that the story you wanted to tell doesn't fit the form you chose. I see an artistic mis-match. The virtuoso performance of the writing art does not hide the major problem - passive hero, hung hero, lack of plot-movement.
I found the "couldn't put it down" appeal because I'm me, but I'm a very rare type of reader.
I judge that because of the artistic mismatch between form and story, the readership will be more limited than the story deserves.
I feel more people would be drawn to (reread and search for sequels) this character if the form matched the story artistically.
So to solve that problem which many beginning writers have and can't cover up the way you did, (and to demonstrate to writing students some points I've made previously) the writer either changes the form or the story -- or possibly both.
Switching the POV is one way to do that with dispatch and economy, to do it in a way that a commercial writer who is writing for profit (i.e. more than minimum wage) would prefer. But you can only do that way before you start to write, preferably before you "have the idea for the story."
Yes, of course shifting makes it a different story and changes the genre. In fact, that's a standard exercise in writing class - change genre by changing pov.
However, the book the reader reads is not the book the writer wrote.
The "can't put it down" story for me was the story of the young girl utterly caught up in the "affairs of wizards" and falling in love with this Immortal guy. (title would still apply perfectly from her POV -- that's ALL she can see; that's become her whole life.)
That "become her whole life" effect is the core effect of Romance Genre.
From her point of view it's a Romance. If you're not a Romance fan, reader or writer, small wonder you don't think that would be interesting, or that the novel would be utterly unique in the anals of commercial fiction.
If I wrote this story about this Immortal guy from that young girl's point of view (and from her POV the other woman is an arch rival and a threat) there would be nothing, absolutely nothing, about the resulting novel that could be described as "tired" or "conventional." Ask my fans if they'd expect that it would be tired or conventional coming from my hand.
But of course if I wrote the novel, the Immortal guy would have a totally different character. So the novel I want to read is the one you would write from her point of view.
When one writer reads work by another writer, they rewrite it in their heads to be their own.
And the brutal fact is that all readers do that too, sometimes without knowing it.
The book the reader reads is not the book the writer wrote. I learned that from Marion Zimmer Bradley who always quoted it from one of her mentors, and I don't recall who (which irks me).
It's no doubt something her mentor learned from someone else. It's forever true.
Writers don't do the innovating in the storytelling field. Readers do.
So thank you for giving your readers a glimpse of the inner workings of your mind as you crafted the first book in this budding series, IMMORTAL.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Gene Doucette Discusses his novel IMMORTAL
Posted by Jacqueline Lichtenberg at 11:00 AM
Labels: Crazy Tuesday, Gene Doucette, Guest Post, Immortal
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you both for a very compelling, fascinating read.ReplyDelete
I'm just glad (!) that Charlotte Bronte is deceased because after reading this I'm pretty sure I would NOT like to read a defense of Jane Eyre written by her.
Jacqueline has a way of distilling everything into its purest form and apparently (sometimes) carnage is the result. At any rate, certain things that others find useful or "still good" are thrown to the side in the search for the kernel of universal truth.
And when she applies this principle to the lessons she is gracious enough to present on this blog, my heart truly sings.
Others hearts obviously do not sing.
Such is life.
As an aside, I just did a complete POV switch on my WIP and everything is now coming together. I did this weeks ago but I want to go "on record" as a case where it was absolutely the right thing to do.
Gene defended his story very well, so I'm not going to touch on his comments except to say I agree with them.ReplyDelete
However, Ms. Lichtenberg, once again, you have opened yourself up to criticism with your comments. You made the comment that a Romance fan would WANT the story told from the girl's point of view.
How about...NO! A resounding and unequivocal NO. I am a romance fan. I write high fantasy that always seem to end up as romances so I believe I'm entitled to my opinion that you are wrong on this. I'd never have picked up the book if it was from Clare's point of view.
I also dislike your generalization that all readers and writers would "rewrite the novel in their own heads". I am both a writer and a reader. I didn't "rewrite" IMMORTAL in my head. I didn't need to. The story that was told was more than sufficient to entertain me and now I can't wait to see where Adam's story goes from here.
Again, you generalize way too much based on your narrow views of what literature "should be". What a good story should be is something that entertains the reader. If it sparks a little controversy, if it makes you THINK about what you've read, then that's a good story.
Conventions and format aside, the creation of an interesting story is the primary purpose of an author. We are storytellers above and beyond whatever else people may think. We have these stories begging to be told inside of us. We write them how we feel they fit the characters. To do any less would be a violation of what makes us storytellers and writers in the first place.
You also see an "artistic mis-match" in the way Gene told Adam's story and the story you think he was trying to get across. Again, I will argue this point.
"Passive hero"? Were we reading the same book? Adam is anything BUT passive. He's a vibrant, living character. He's jaded, indifferent at times to fault, and an asshole (as I've said before) but he is hardly a "passive hero". A "passive hero" sits back and lets other people do everything. He spends most of the book doing everything for himself, with only a little help from a few friends.
I couldn't put IMMORTAL down. I'm not a reader who picks up a book and pushes through it to the end to see how it ends. If I don't like it within the first few chapters, I'll put it down and won't pick it up again. Everyone I've given IMMORTAL to is the same way I am.
So how is it that everyone I've given IMMORTAL to (and I've loaned out my copy several times and encouraged others to buy their own) has the same general opinion as that of those of us who have stepped up to defend Gene and Adam?
The story is well written. It gets its point across in the best way possible for the character telling the story. It wouldn't BE the same story - and it wouldn't be nearly as interesting - after being written from someone else's point of view. We all agree he's very indifferent and a bit of an asshole, but we also agree that we couldn't put the book down because we could identify with him and wanted to see him win.
I am reminded of a story...ReplyDelete
Back when I was shopping an earlier draft of Immortal, I was shopping for blurbs, connecting with any sci fi writers I could. One writer, who I won't name, said he'd be happy to look at it once galleys were ready, but could I send him a few chapters now? I did so, sending the first two, just to give him a taste.
No, no, no, you have it all wrong! he said. An Immortal man wouldn't act like that at ALL. He would be much wiser! Think of all he would have learned, the accumulated knowledge and wisdom!
All I could think was, "well maybe YOUR immortal character is all that." He did not, unsurprisingly, get galleys sent to him...
"The book the reader reads is not the book the writer wrote."ReplyDelete
I completely agree. That's why everyone responds to books differently. It's the same book, but we all bring our past and our preconceived notions with us. For Immortal, you seemed drawn to the romantic aspect. I was drawn to the historical aspect (I'm a huge history nut). Good books satisfy readers from many different backgrounds. They have universal (or at least widespread) appeal.
I found the "couldn't put it down" appeal because I'm me, but I'm a very rare type of reader.
I'm an obsessive reader myself. (It's probably not as rare as you think.) I force myself through every book I start. Sometimes it's like pulling teeth.
To me, "couldn't put it down" is very different than "wouldn't put it down." I'm curious: which was Immortal for you? Did you finish it because you "always finish books" or because it pulled you in? And if it pulled you in, why?
I am someone with a lifelong habit of losing myself in supporting characters and "rewriting" their stories in my own head.ReplyDelete
I have yet to find the perfect novel for my sensabilities, but I've certainly found sections of stories that I will return to time and again, because something about them speaks to me.
I think it's a triumph of creation for Mr. Doucette that he's crafted a character and a scenario in Clara, which came to life for Ms. Lichtenberg.
It's a parallel triumph of imagination for Ms. Lichtenberg that she can so identify with that character and her story within the story, to an extent that she'd like to see it come to a life of its own.
Really, I think it's a beautiful thing. (course, maybe I'm projecting)
I do also wonder though, if Clara will, in fact, grow disappointed with Adam as she gets to know him better. We, the readers do get to know him better, by virtue of travelling around inside his head. I like the guy, but I wouldn't want to date him.
I'm asking myself if Ms. Lichtenberg's feelings of empathy for Clara led to some ambiguous feelings toward Adam (as Mr. Doucette points out, Adam's feelings toward Clara seem to be less intense than hers. In a story from her perspective, would he be a hero? A mysterious antihero? A dangerous seducer?)
If anything like that is at play... Well, I know I'd be proud to write anything that would produce that caliber of emotional investment in a reader.
I'll be posting a long, involved answer to your question April 5, 2011, on this blog in "Gene Doucette's Immortal revisited"
All of this has massive implications not only for the future of publishing (text-based-storytelling) but also for film and video (image-based-storytelling) and I may be talking about all this for months, years even, on this blog.
Your issue is likewise to be addressed April 5th and onwards.
I'm happy that Ms. L posted Mr. D's response to her critique of Immortal. I'm disappointed at her addendum. It just seems to me that she is attempting to shove a square peg into a round hole (forgive the triteness of the metaphor) which never has a positive result.ReplyDelete
Others have made very perceptive and wonderful comments here. I will only add one, very simple, thing. Immortal was FUN to read.