Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
>What fascinates me is the terrain between people's public lives –
what we say, how we present themselves – and the internal life<

Interstitial terrain. Where Gerry likes to build.

Gerry won my sympathy here: 

"Unexpectedly, Seb took a half-step forward and gave Gerry a quick
hug.

Gerry closed his eyes for a moment, feeling immeasurably satisfied
with every decision about fatherhood he'd ever made, from having kids
in the first place to the story he'd just told his son."

All kinds of things wrong with that man, but the heart works. There
are a lot of parallels between him and Angie. They are both
good-looking, goodhearted bimbos who have gotten over on looks and
charm too often. Susanna appears to be fond of the type.

I have a question. There is a book discussion in this book, a
discussion, in fact, of another of your books. It is very tempting to
look at that discussion for clues on how to think about this book. It's
where Jean passes judgment on the woman who walks out on her family:
"She had no stickability." Jean values stickability, and Susanna is
Jean's good daughter. I am inclined to think that this story is about
what it's like when one does stick it out. Does this seem reasonable 
to you?
  

    
Pamela, hello, and welcome. Glad the slang didn't trip you up!

Thanks for your kind words on my depiction of the teenagers. The
teenagers in this book seem to be the favourite characters of many
readers, and young Olivia, in my first novel Without a Backward Glance,
is another of these intelligent, self-sufficient young people, who, I
have to say, I love dearly. Teenagers so often get an undeserved bad
rap, both in mainstream media and in fiction, and non-fiction, books by
adults. 

When you say <they sound like authentic kids, not some grownup's idea
of kids>, I feel a warm glow of pride!

Can I ask you, did the level of swearing surprise you, or any other
readers? It's caused some comment on US blogs, but that may be from
conservative readers. Australians – middle class white Australians,
like the family in this novel do tend to swear more than their American
counterparts. 
 
  

    

Sticking it out for twenty years or so, and then it all goes kablooey?
  

    

Oops, the author slipt.
  

    
Inserting myself here into the conversation about the book group, with
Harmless Drudge (welcome, Harmless Drudge, delighted to make your
acquaintance, and thanks especially for your comments on Gerry who
would SO HATE to be called a bimbo!) and Wickett, re 

<The book discussion in this book, a discussion, in fact, of another
of your books. It is very tempting to look at that discussion for clues
on how to think about this book. It's where Jean passes judgment on
the woman who walks out on her family:
"She had no stickability." Jean values stickability, and Susanna is
Jean's good daughter. I am inclined to think that this story is about
what it's like when one does stick it out. Does this seem reasonable 
to you?>

A couple of Australian reviewers made the parallel between the two
books, and I must say I think it's a perceptive and perfectly
reasonable one to draw. However, it was not in my mind when I wrote
that scene about the book group. Apart from having fun with saying
dismissive things about my own work, my intent was to elucidate Jean's
character: why she became the sort of person she is, ie someone whose
options for education and career were limited by the era she grew up
in, and why she is inclined to be rather judgmental, especially of her
younger daughter.

Myself, I'm interested in people's actions and their consequences, but
not in making judgments about the wrongness or rightness of those
actions.  Does that make sense?  Or were you asking something a bit
different?
  

    

>  Can I ask you, did the level of [teen] swearing surprise you

It seemed pretty normal to me, judging by what I hear muttered by the
American kids (ages around 12-14) who walk past my house every day
on their way to and home from the junior high school a block away. 
But perhaps others have a different experience, obviously I can only
answer for myself.

Kate, in the Saturday Age piece on your book
(http://www.kateveitch.com/downloads/trust_age_220510.pdf -- nice
review, by the way!), reviewer Jo Case writes:

"A journey of self-discovery and reinvention is at the heart of this
novel, as is fairly standard for 'hen lit' ... But what's really
refreshing about 'Trust' is that this heroine's transformation
doesn't involve a new wardrobe, an exotic holiday or even a new man."

I've never heard "hen lit" before but immediately understood it to
be a term defining safe, comfortable storylines aimed at the
middle-aged nesting female. Sort of like chick lit, but a slightly
more mature audience.

I know you; I know you didn't calculate your plot to satisfy a
particular readers' market, Kate, but it seems that people still
want to classify your work as if you had, even though your work rises
well above the formulaic.

Have you had to struggle with publishers and/or editors to keep from
getting boxed in as a formula writer? Have advertising efforts been
aimed at a "hen lit" audience rather than reaching for a broader
range? 
  

    
Peeps, may I jump in and say that every author gets boxed in by his or
her editors--if not boxed in, certainly classified.  You hate it; you
can't see why you have to endure it; but it's never-ending. Finally you
just write past it and, in terms of future publication, hope for the
best.

Yes, the self-discovery was not the formulaic new wardrobe/man/MBA,
but Susanna pulling something out of herself that had been there all
along, occluded by a deep wish to be agreeable to others. These horrors
that form her art are not agreeable in the least, but they drive her
art ("inform" seems too anodyne) and that's profound.

Very funny scene, btw, where the TV crew arrives and she's in
hand-me-down trousers, way out of style, and a horrible blouse she only
uses for painting. 

Finally, the teens swearing--I'm sorry to say I didn't even notice it,
it seemed so natural.
  

    

What about Gerry's "occluded" sexuality?  He, too, was driven.  He also had
been effectively lied to for twenty years by his non-orgasmic wife.
  

    
Cynthia, your question: 
<Have you had to struggle with publishers and/or editors to keep from
getting boxed in as a formula writer? Have advertising efforts been
aimed at a "hen lit" audience rather than reaching for a broader
range?>

In fact, I've been very happy with how my Australian publishers (check
out the striking red cover on my website) have presented my novels.
The "box" they've got me in is what's called "quality commercial
fiction", rather than the dreaded chick lit or (hideous term) hen lit.
AND -- I have had the benefit of a gifted, supportive editor. Critical
response, in the form of serious and positive reviews in pretty much
all the important newspaper and journals (yay!) has reflected this. 

In the US, amid the tsunami of books released each week, it's been
almost impossible to create a ripp;e.  Plus, there's a definite of
dismissiveness in the US toward books which have been released staright
into paperback: they're assumed to have been not good enough to
warrant a hardback release.  And serious reviewers won't even glance at
them. This had never even occurred to me as being a potential problem,
since in Australia it's very rare for ANY book to be released in
hardback.  Finances in our small population just don't permit it. 

A paperback here in Oz btw costs the same as a hardback in the US.

Sorry, I've wandered a bit from Cynthia's question.  I guess there's
one term that blog reviewers (amateurs) have used which irritates me
more than anything else, and that's "soap opera". Lazy term, and always
a "boo" word used to be dismissive about stories which concern
families.  What do you, esteemed Inkwellers, think of that term "soap
opera", and why?
  

    
Pamela, love that get the humour of scenes like <where the TV crew
arrives and she's in
hand-me-down trousers, way out of style, and a horrible blouse she
only
uses for painting.

I did have a lot of fun writing little bits like that, and there's
lots in the interaction between the teenagers, or course.
  

    
Wickett, good on you for bringing up the issue of sexuality: that
Gerry had been <effectively lied to for twenty years by his
non-orgasmic wife.>  
Susanna isn't entirely non-orgasmic, but she's got into the lazy habit
of, quite often, pretending to have reached orgasm when she hasn't. 
She's never thought of this as lying, just another instance of being
agreeable, making her husband feel good (better perhaps than he
deserves.) This is the essence of the "married sex" that this couple
has been having for a loooong time. Gerry doesn't mind because it's a
private justification for having his little "adventures" off-site, and
Susanna doesn't mind it because ... well, a good wife doesn't DEMAND
more ... and she also, chronically, puts herself last. 

In being so reflexively "good", and not only in the area of sex,
Susanna's in fact done no favours either to her self or her husband.
  

    
Oops, shd've proofread before pressing POST.  Sorry abt all the typos,
peeps!  It's Saturday morning here and I gotta scurry off and VOTE! 
The time diff presents some challenges to our conversation, but I'm
enjoying it; trust you are too.
  

    
Kate slipped, and you'll see below that I saw Susanna in bed as Kate
apparently intended. But before that:

Besides being amusing, that scene (of being caught by the TV crew in
bad old clothes) was actually thought-provoking. Old Feminism held that
to pay attention to such things as your appearance was bad, bourgeois,
unenlightened, whatever. 

But the truth is, self-presentation has always been important to human
beings. It isn't just vanity (though of course it can be); it's very
much how we live and have our being in a human world.

Susanna's lying tacitly to her husband by faking her orgasms struck me
as another way of her wanting to be agreeable. But since she'd never
even considered giving him a blowjob, he had the right to some
complaints of his own, as <wickett> points out. It may be his private
justification for his infidelities, but to me, it's arguably a valid
one.
  

    

Susanna was hardly agreeable by refusing blow jobs and she definitely put 
herself first by allowing her disinclination to leave Gerry pining (or 
partially unsatisfied) for two decades.

In this as in many other areas, theirs was a comfortable marriage, but not 
one of personal mutuality or much intimacy.  Secrets, not just the sexual 
ones, gradually accreted until there were too many secrets for the  
edifice to withstand the assaults.  
  

    
Thanks to both of you, Wickett and Pamela, for getting the fact that I
see both characters, Gerry and Susanna, as having responsibility for
where their marriage ends up. Mind you, part of the problem is that
they're both very good at only recognising the parts of themselves that
are acceptable to their own self-image.

Susanna I see as some one who has been under the sway of stronger
personalities than her own, all her life.  First her mother Jean, then
her husband, Gerry. Her way to survive these "benevolent dictators" has
been through compliance rather than defiance, but she has her ways,
often unconscious, of maintaining differentiation – as Wickett points
out. 

I have wondered if her devotion to her younger sister Angie was
perhaps a "good girl" way of defying her mother, as well as sibling
affection.

"Modern tormented families" – love 'em!  (Though writing about the
really curly bits is more fun than living 'em...)
  

    
Oh, I should point out, too, that Gerry didn't exactly press his suit
in terms of getting more adventurous, sexually, with his wife.
Generally, he's not averse to pushing to get his way – so, why didn't
he push harder with Susanna in bed? One request for a blowjob, never
repeated once it was brushed off: that's either a wimp, or a guy who's
hitting the high spots elsewhere. Don't you reckon?
  

    

Sorry to reply so late, Kate, but in response to your question about why 
I felt drawn to JeeJee's character, I gave it some thought and came up 
with:  because she's constant.

I'm glad that somebody brought up the scene with the book club where the 
assigned book was your first one!  I thought that was a scream.  Was it 
hard to write that kind of dialog about yourself?

Oh, and I have a tiny little nit.  Or maybe a red herring.  When I read 
the part where Susannah burned the...what was it?...in the bucket 
outside, I wondered when the fires were going to start, and for a while 
there, I expected you to draw a connection between the two, and I 
wondered if Susannah was somehow instrumental in starting them.
  

    

Not necessarily.  To make an intimate request is to be exposed and 
vulnerable, not feelings Gerry welcomed.  If the rejection had been 
incredulous, the import would have been clear.

Gerry didn't seem to travel all that often, and I can't imagine that he 
scored each time, so, in my view, he was rather restrained and protective 
of his family.
  

    

Now Castle slipt!
  

    

Hi Kate - I'm an american living in Australia - Sydney for a couple of years
and just now Melbourne. I haven't read Trust, but after reading this I'll
have to check it out.

(meanwhile I'm listening to election results and trying to understand AFL )
  

    

> trying to understand AFL

heh... reminds me of an Aussie friend who visited me in the States in the
latter part of the 1970s. He was used to Aussie rules football, where
you don't use your hands to move the ball down the field, you use your
feet. He was watching an American football game when kicker Tom Dempsey
came onto the field to kick a goal.

My friend scratched his head and said, "Ya know, this American football
is really wierd. You call it FOOTball, but the players use their hands
to move the ball down the field. And when a guy finally shows up to kick
the ball he doesn't even _have__ a proper foot!" (Kate, that was Phillip)


   *****************

Football aside, I wanted to ask about the Australian elections, Kate. 
You wrote:

> ... we use a preferential voting system, which means that if
 the party you marked as your first choice doesn't win the seat, your
 second choice will be counted. Thus, I can vote for the Green Party
 candidate in my electorate, and although they are unlikely to win the
 seat, this registers support for their policies.  Then, my second
 preference, for the Labor Party candidate, will count. <

This seems like such a logical way to conduct an election, Kate. In the
States, as you know, our voting process is black and white -- you vote
for one candidate only in a given race. No way to express the subtleties
of "well, I'd most like A to win, but if not A, B would be a much better
choice than N." 

I'd think that this preferential voting system would influence the
politicians who win to look closely at the tally of the other candidates,
and try to incorporate some of the views into the governing. Like, if
Labor wins but Green pulls 15 percent of the vote, Labor would want to  
give special attention to some of Green's platform in order to win over
that 15 percent. 

Does it work that way?
  

    

Sounds pretty sane and desirable to me, Cynthia.  Curious, too, if it works
that way in Australia.
  

    
It didn't yesterday. A relatively small advance by the Greens destroyed the
majority of the current Government, and therefore Mr Abbott's assertion that
its legitimacy is also lost must alas be considered.

(With the additional negative outcome for those of us on the other side of
the Tasman: we'll have to put up with Mr Abbott in our media for awhile
longer.)
  

    

but, it seems to me, both labor and liberals now have to court the green and
the independents to try and get them to vote with the coalition or w labor,
so that is good. From what I'm hearing, they are still counting ballots.

I'm curious Kate about how you got your very first novel published - did you
write the whole book and then send it out? did you have an agent? how does
it all work?
  

    
Quite a few diverse topics here!  First, I'll offer a few words about
the Australian election – but only a few, because I feel so ill at the
possibility that the odious Tony Abbott could become PM.

Yes, counting is continuing, and it's highly likely that as <die die
must try> says, "both labor and liberals now have to court the green
and
the independents" in order to form a government. (Note to US readers:
remember that the Liberal Party is actually our conservative party, and
they long ago formed a "coalition" with an even more conservative
party, the Nationals).

The vote for the Greens has almost doubled from the last election in
2007 (from 7% to close to 12%), and most of this increase has come from
former Labor voters.  This SHOULD tell the Labor Party that they lost
support because, after becoming elected, they did not follow through on
things like climate change and a more humane policy toward refugees.
But will that happen, or will they just get bitter about the Greens
having "stolen" their voters?

The increase in votes for the conservative parties (Liberal/National
coalition) was quite small, under 2%. It's the swing AWAY from Labor
that's brought them undone. But despite the fact that a more
conservative government may take over from Labor, the take-home message
should be that the Australian electorate has become LESS conservative,
not more.

Okay, back to fiction ...