Thursday, October 18: Femme Fatale
BELIEVING LIES
by Deborah Elliott-Upton
“In our openings, we are most likely to lie.” – Anton Chekhov
It’s easy enough to lie. Criminals beat lie detectors every day. Lovers cheat and get away with it – at least for a while – and confessions written as a hypothetical version of what could have happened are sometimes perceived as the fiction they claim to be. Sometimes.
Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction and no one believes you. Sometimes, truth is interwoven into threads of lies that this adaptation becomes even more true than the truth itself.
“You can’t handle the truth!” – “A Few Good Men”
In my creative writing classes, there have been more than one student who has challenged critiques with, “But that’s what really happened.”
Maybe it did, but exact truth doesn’t usually make it good drama. That’s why many of the “based-on-a-true-story” movies are more fiction than not, complete with a small print disclaimer on the screen.
A fellow writer who specializes in nonfiction once professed how much easier it must be to write fiction since I could “make up” anything I wanted whereas she had to rely on facts.
On my side of the fence, it seemed incredibly easier when all the writer had to do was record those facts.
“The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.” – Oscar Wilde
Good fiction writing means creating believable characters, settings and plots. It isn’t always what could have happened in our town, but what might have happened if certain things were to fall into place exactly like we need them to predict a pattern of beginning action to the eventual resolution.
Truth may be believable, but it can also be boring. Sometimes, a chain of actions is needed, but something important can’t happen just because the writer needs it to complete the plot. It is always a weakness to rely too much on coincidence or stereotypes.
One of my writing instructors said a coincidence is allowed once in a story, but no more or the entire project is deemed unbelievable and the author loses credibility. The worse sin a writer can commit is to allow his reader to stop reading and begin questioning what he just read.
Although, it can twist and turn, plot is fragile. It’s like playing Jenga™. One wrong move and it all comes tumbling down.
I’m reading Joyce Carol Oates’ I Am No One You Know, a collection of short stories. Oates is a master at nudging the reader along with her, one step at a time, never permitting him to wonder, “Could this really happen?” We do believe this story happened. We believe the people are real. As if we were reading a diary entry, we wonder what happened to these people when the story ends. Oates makes it look easy. Now, that’s excellent lying, er, uh writing.
Sorry, but I agree with Gore Vidal: “The saddest three words in English language are Joyce Carol Oates.” I find her writing too mannered for words.
I was also a little surprised by the terrific support Doris Lessing got on this forum (since as you all know, I’m not all that crazy about her, either), especially given how many really great women writers we have.
Too bad Patricia Highsmith or Dorothy Hughes never got a Nobel Prize. Now, they knew how to lie.
I guess that’s why we have so many choices of writers, because there are so many varied tastes. I personally like Joyce Carol Oates just fine. :]]
Thanks, Deborah, for the info on ‘sins’ of writing. I know I am disappointed when I read a novel and start to question the writer.
I belive in writing truth, the same as the saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Statistics can prove or disprove the same subject matter, I would mention global warming, but….heh heh.
An example would be three people can be involved in the same incident. More than likely, there would be three POVs of the incident. It is all in (or within) the storyteller. Real truth is hard to define.
As for Ms. Lessing, I suppose my support is that so many ideas are derived from what her “stories” are “about.” I haven’t read her works, but she has to be pretty darns good to get those reactions and I might add, the depth of the issues “about.” Not mild stuff!!
As for her winning the Nobel Peace prize for writing, while Global Warming is indeed an issue that should/could/would be dealt with—I don’t see it as a peaceful settlement to wars, peace in general, and so on.
Matter of whomever is chosing the awards and “why” perhaps?
Moot point. The awards are given and again I have to give Ms. Lessing a high-five for modestly NOT preening over hers!
darns? darns good? I type too fast for my own good!!!
No matter how many coincidences there are in a story, it’s up to the writer to make it seem believable. I don’t hold with rules like “There can only be one coincidence in a story.” That’s just limiting, and irritating. The question is how believable are you as a writer? I believe a truly talented (and creative) writer can write a story about a series of coincidences and make it seem like it really happened!
P.S. Joyce Carol Oates is one of the most overrated writers working today! But that’s just my opinion, and tastes DO differ.
Not preen?
The New York Times reports:
“I was a bit surprised because I had forgotten about it actually,” she said. “My name has been on the short list for such a long time.”
As the persistent sound of her ringing phone came from inside the house, Ms. Lessing said that on second thought, she was not as surprised “because this has been going on for something like 40 years,” referring to the number of times she has been mentioned as a likely honoree. “Either they were going to give it to me sometime before I popped off or not at all.”
That does not sound modest to me.
I admire any writer who can create believable fiction. So many times, when I finish a book, I feel like I’ve said goodbye to a very close friend. Of course, I can’t wait to get the next one when it’s a series and the story continues.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Debbie.
Looks like we have a wide variety of readers here. I like that. Not everyone has to have (or should have) the same tastes – how boring is that? As far as the coincidences go, (and in my humble opinion) I think it’s a very lazy writer who allows one coincidence after another to happen in the story just to make the plot “work.” Just my opinion.
he says—Not preen?
she says—-hmmmm I guess it depends on whether she was sitting in front of a mirror all those 40 years waiting……:-)
Whatever. (my husband borders on hate of that word!)
There’s a line in one of the Indianna Jones movies where Prof. Jones tells his class “Archeology is a search for fact.” He then tells them that if they want truth he can reccomend a good philosophy class. Hey, I gotta read Doris Lessing now! (Anybody who can inspire 9 Comments…)
I have to admit that James and I finally agree on something. I do not like Joyce CarolOates’ novels. BUT I do like many of her short stories, especialy the ones in our genre. And her non fiction book On Boxing.
Now James,
I’m not sure what your point is about Lessing. You quote Lenin which proved HER point. And “a story is just a just a story” is not the equivalent of art for arts sake as you said in your column.A story implies content, thought, and theme. Art for art etc..implies art without thought, content, or theme.
And when Lessing said a story is just a story she was was trying to deflect easy academic, political, and media labels. Of course she knowes the political/creative substance of her stories. She just does not want to be categorized.
Should she have won the prize? Well, as I said, she lost me as a reader long ago. But like Mailer and other such writers, who stir things up, the spirit of her voice has endured.
My point is that Lessing claimed she was writing a story for just the story’s sake without regard to its ethical content, and then blamed the Communists and religion for insisting that stories should have an ethical content–i.e., that they are actually “about” something other than an anecdote. She was being intellectually dishonest.
And anybody who waits around for a Nobel Prize as if it were due her–a Nobel Prize!–can hardly be considered modest. What makes it rankle even more is that Nobel Prizes have been famous for taking what stories are “about” into primary consideration since at least the time that Boris Pasternak got the nod.
James,
Where did you get the idea that she was waiting around for the Nobel as if it were do her?
And she was being sly and ironic with the French repoter, as I tried to explain, when she said that line about a story is just a story.
I think that the Nobel Prize has lost its way as far as literature is concerend. (Also the peace prize.) They are not interested in what stories are about. They are mostly interested in leftist politics. How long ago was Pasternak?
From her own words, quoted above.
Pasternak won the Nobel Prize in 1958–and his politics were clearly anti-Communist.
As far as the Peace Prize is concerned, I don’t see how Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama can be considered leftists. And global warming knows no ideology.
Fabulous commentary!
I feel like I just spent some time with my smartest friends and everyone had something different to say. I don’t even feel guilty for reading blogs when I “should” be writing.
Terrie
This topic certainly opened up a vein, didn’t it? My only comment: Joyce Carol Oates is great. However, I admit I’ve read mostly her short stories and never any of her big novels, just some of the shorter ones. She may have a mannered style but she uses it to get inside the skin of a great variety of people.
AND FURTHERMORE…
I just didn’t want to give JLW the last word.