Monthly Archives: March 2009

The Conclusion of an Interview with Matt Shaw

This is the second half of an interview with Toronto fiction writer, Matt Shaw, author of The Obvious Child, (Exile Editions). You can find the first half here. Matt discusses a range of topics related to his collection and fiction writing in general, including self-help books, storytelling, the absurd, the grotesque and the Financial Post.

When Saul, the protagonist of your story, “The Elevator,” finally manages to leave his job after several attempts, he takes with him his copy of The Thirteen Habits of Highly Effective People. There is a similarly sly critique of the philosophy of goal-attainment in “One Trick Pony,” when elementary students are told that their goals are “unequivocally attainable.” Have you read Steven R. Covey’s internationally best-seller The Seven Habits Highly Effective People, or his more recent follow-up, The Eighth Habit? What is your favourite habit?

My favourite habit: Put first things first. Chekhov’s gun on the wall. Always. Fundamentals. And take your time. Is there anything that feels slower or less urgent than a novel, than prose? Any artwork more cumbersome? Yet for a writer or passionate reader, is there anything more urgent? The principle’s good advice for writers. A golden rule. Use it in your writing habits and put first things first in the fiction. Habit five (understand, then be understood) is a close second.

I have a condescending attitude toward self-help books. Maybe that’s because I’ve never been helped by one. I find my questions only multiply when reading books. I’m probably not really interested in answers, or else I’d probably be a scientist. I do appreciate that self-help books seem to provide a certain measure of comfort for millions of people. Because of them, they think that books improve their lives. I like that point of view, even if people get to it ass-backwards. But if you look for first things first, you can find those lessons in a classic novel, too. And executed with considerable more beauty and skill.

In one sense, the title story of your collection is about the act of storytelling. At the conclusion of this story, Plektos Ersatz asks himself: “…where is the root in people’s souls…at what point does one say ‘Yes, there is the obvious cause, what eludes us, what might make our souls whole?’” What, in your opinion, is storytelling’s relation to this question?

Without lamenting it, writing stories is in every way an exercise in failure.
To a writer’s reality, it’s extraordinarily difficult to write well, to make a living doing it, to write a living, breathing work of art that is cohesive despite the fact it might have taken the writer most of a lifetime to finish. If you’ve got a timely idea you’d like to address, you better hurry, too: for most writers, writing is slow.

Technically, writing is the only art that doesn’t really use one (or more than one) of the five senses in any predominant way: painting and the eye; dancing and the body, touch; music and the ear. You can hear a story without seeing, read a story without hearing. You can even feel a story, if you can read Braille.braille04.png

Writing is entirely representative. It relies on a very complex semiotic web of meanings that flicker back and forth on one another. It is entirely imaginative. And a story, if told in a sprawling novel, relies entirely on the memory of the reader to achieve any cumulative effect of power. Through imagination and memory, you can mix up the elements. You can willfully ignore pieces of text. Particular words. You can misremember stories. Change them. And, for me, there is always the nagging reminder that there is something that I could be doing that would be more constructive or productive. Grow a garden, work for Habitat for Humanity, achieve inner peace through meditation, and earn thirty million dollars a year.

My point is that storytelling for me, like detective work, is about uncovering motive. The writer’s, the reader’s, the characters’, the book’s, and probably more. That’s why I wrote about Dreschl. He’s a pretty lousy detective, but not for lack of effort. He is earnest to the extreme. He wants desperately to understand the man he is charged with finding: a man who isn’t actually missing at all. He takes the world in. He makes a lot of notes. He tries to articulate his ideas. He fails often. Even if he is incapable of understanding his own obsession, it drives him. And, when at last he thinks that he’s got an idea – he makes up a story that’s not the least bit rooted in any objective fact that led him there. He’s left wondering. Me too.

Leon Rooke has compared your stories to those of Donald Barthelme and Franz Kafka. Are there contemporary writers of absurd and sinister stories whose work you would recommend?

I’m drawn to writers that satisfy my version of “grotesque,” which is simply to take something that is ordinarily very human and twist around just enough so that it doesn’t look human anymore, even if it is. Or to make something look human that actually isn’t the least bit human. To make it strange in the classic sense.

A few that come to mind immediately in a sort of free association: Sheila Heti’s Middle Stories, Ticknor. Amy Hempel’s short shorts. Roald Dahl’s adult fiction is sly, twisted, flawed, outdated but overlooked; too bad, because there’s something there. Tom McCarthy’s Men in Space. Pynchon’s Mason & Dixon was huge for me. That book made an entire genre new and strange: the Great American Historical Novel. Lee Henderson’s The Man Game is a recent effort in the much smaller Canadian category. At the top of his game, Leon Rooke is great. Ben Marcus, an American, wrote two books that I have a love/hate relationship with: The Age of Wire and String and Notable American Women. Roberto Bolaño. Georges Perec’s La Disparition (“A Void” in the English translation) is the greatest detective novel I’ve ever read, if not contemporary. Gaetan Soucy, Nicola Barker. Gyorgy Dragoman’s The White King. I had high hopes for Nathaniel Rich’s The Mayor’s Tongue that weren’t met, but another instructive book for young writers.

I’m drawn to Czech and Hungarian writing. Even the more realistic modes of some Central and Eastern European writers really create the aura of the grotesque because, in a westerner’s eyes, their 20th century existed in a weird alternate universe. Three collections of Hungarian short fiction that aren’t contemporary but are probably new to most people: Nothing’s Lost, The Kiss. Exile Editions put out the third, a book called Hungarian Short Stories, several years ago. I love that book. They’re all out of print, but Exile might still have some copies of Hungarian Short Stories lying around. Josef Skvorecky.

American fiction from the deep south and American Jewish writing have always had that effect on me too, whatever their mode, realism or not. For a Catholic Canadian born in the snow and raised on hockey, the subjects of writers like Faulkner and O’Connor or Singer and Malamud were completely new and exciting. Not always absurd or sinister, although Malamud’s The Tenants always strikes a chord. That was a major inspiration for my story “Dreschl & the Obvious Child.”

These days, I find a lot of truly absurd material in the business section of the newspaper: the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business, the Financial Post. The Economist is so dry and even-keeled that you can’t help but miss some of the sinister things that take place there that are worth a second look. Highly recommended.

Are you working on anything new? Would care to comment on your latest literary project?

I’ve always been fickle. In the past, I would stay on one project as long as it kept my attention. When that waned, I moved on, often never to return. Today, I embrace that attitude. I work on as many as half a dozen projects at once, constantly going back and forth, switching gears. One project I’m working on is a novel inspired by – but not the least bit faithful to – the life of Roald Dahl. Dahl was a beloved children’s author, Washington spy, married and divorced a movie star, was generally obnoxious and sometimes abusive, disliked by many, wrote disturbing (and sometimes terrible) adult fiction, was very tall, charismatic, lied often and had several affairs: a great foundation for a fictional character. The book is tentatively called The Lighthearted War. We’ll see what happens.  –Matt Shaw

Tweets, Textiquette and the Tsunami of Technology

We had a long and involved discussion at last Sunday’s Descant meeting about upcoming themes for future issues. One co-editor suggested a theme along the lines of communications and incivility, the erosion of the personal and public space (an idea which obsesses me a bit I must say). I think that was the gist of the suggestion. This conversation carried over into drinks at a bar down the street after the meeting. 
  
I cannot say it isn’t maddening to have a friend or colleague peering at their Blackberry, cellphone, PDA, or what have you, during a meeting, social or otherwise, or that I haven’t nearly lost my mind asking my daughter J to put away, put away, please put away, the cellphone, DS, Macbook, etc … she is using when company is over, during dinner, while practicing her guitar, etc …

Listening to complete strangers discuss the most intimate or unsettling details of their lives to friend, boyfriend or sister on the streetcar ain’t my idea of fun either. And I fear that I will soon become one of those old, sour-faced ladies who will bellow to some apple cheeked but oblivious youth on the subway: “COULD YOU PLEASE TURN DOWN YOUR IPOD??” 
  
But although a curmudgeon at heart, I feel we rail against a stronger foe than ourselves that cannot be beaten, indeed, should not be beaten. 
  
Secretly, I do sometimes wring my hands thinking, “Why can’t people send handwritten letters any more instead of e-mails?” To my mind, e-mails are as a characterless and ephemeral as the dust on butterfly wings – who will save the e-mails that we send to each other a hundred years from now? 
  
“Why don’t we read more newspapers?” I sometimes wonder. The great newspapers are being diminished and destroyed, page by page, column by column, every day for readers who favour getting their news on-line. Guilty as charged because that’s what I do now for the most part aside from the occasional Globe & Mail or New York Times. 

“Why can’t X just call me instead of tweeting or writing on their Facebook page or sending me a text or an e-mail?” But I am part of that problem too … 
  
“Why am I getting my political news from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Bill Maher’s Real Time rather than Peter Mansbridge or Brian Williams?” I sometimes think guiltily. I really do have these thoughts and that’s just … sad. 
  
I will attempt to answer these questions: We now have access to modes of communication that are seen to be more relevant, faster, exciting, interesting to utilize. Not necessarily superior mind you, but more relevant, faster, exciting, interesting … 
  
The new technology is like a tsunami and there is no point in saying … I really wish I wasn’t in the path of that tsunami. I really wish we had been better to the environment and then maybe this wouldn’t have happened. You are in its path, it has now reached the balcony and the roof – it’s here now so how shall we deal with it? 
  
Despite moralizing and hand wringing, we cannot compel people, especially younger people, to use modes of communication or media that may seem outdated, un-user friendly, not ecologically sound, uninteresting.

I love newspapers but I don’t subscribe to one anymore.

I love my library of books but I have definitely reduced my purchase of them now sometimes resorting to borrowing from lending libraries and friends and weeding out my library at home (I have images of my kid cursing me when I pass away and she has to dispose of all my books and such).

I am a bit of a news hound but am I listening to respected news anchors on the CBC or network television? No, I’m guiltily watching Jon Stewart on the Comedy Channel or Anderson Cooper on CNN or reading the Globe & Mail on-line. 
  
When compelled to do something that one finds somewhat distasteful but necessary (as in engaging with the real world – as irksome as that may be to some of us) do as Lady Alice Hillingdon, wife of 2nd Baron Hillingdon, did in 1912.
When speaking of the need to fulfill her husband’s unsolicited desires she wrote: “I lie down on my bed, close my eyes … and think of England.” The original quote, possibly apocryphal, was a bit more graphic than this but you get the message. 
  
Think of the phrase “Think of England” as the future, and that this is the technology that I will need to navigate the new world with. Pretending that the world has not changed or should change to your liking won’t make you more adapted to it. Only a bit sadder … 

Confessions Of A Professional Liar

It’s true, I am a compulsive liar. Of course I could be lying about that too. And if I am telling the truth, then I am not a compulsive liar. This kind of paradox is so typical when it comes to issues of mendacity. As writers, we are compelled to tell lies. And what is paradoxical is that our lies, unlike truth, have to be plausible. Mark Twain is famously quoted as saying,  “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” Every Max-Factored news anchor likes to end his or her broadcast with a ‘can you believe it’ clip—an orphaned fawn being mothered by a lioness perhaps. Where as we authors subject ourselves to peer grilling in writing groups and workshops about the authenticity of our characters and the believability of our plots. “What’s the lioness’ motive?” they would surely argue. “Perhaps you can add a scene where the lioness loses her own cub,” I can hear them say.  Editors and readers demand truthful fiction. But isn’t  ‘truthful fiction’ an oxymoron?

Not so. Recently I was called for jury duty and I discovered that motive is far more potent than truth. About one-hundred of us ordinary citizens were summoned into a courtroom for jury selection in a case of attempted murder by a young Afro-Canadian male. Of the one-hundred, seventy citizens were asked by the Defense lawyer if the accused man’s race (African) would hamper their ability to assess the facts of the case. All of the potential jurors swore to tell the truth before answering. Surprisingly, more than half said the man’s race would bias their judgment. What was even more surprising was that most of the people who admitted prejudice were non-whites (Asians and other non-Africans). I was shocked that in this post-Obama world race was still an issue. Then someone pointed out to me that all of these supposed racists were the same ones who had asked the Judge to be exempted from this long trial and had been denied. These jurors did not get paid by their employers for time-off during jury duty. I then realized that these jurors were not really racists but were financially motivated to lie under oath.
slug.png books.jpeg
slug.png

According to evolutionary experts such David Livingston Smith, in his book, Why We Lie, species have a survival motive for lying. Those who lie well live to reproduce: from camouflage of chameleons, to the baby-complexion on Cher; from the trickery of cuckoo birds to embellishing our chat room profiles—lying is hard-wired into our DNA. Smith argues that in the world, one is either a sucker or a deceiver. Paradoxically, nature has also hard-wired us to trust. In fact our very sense of well-being and happiness depends on it. A person who doubts everyone and anything is diagnosed as “paranoid” and doomed to a life of fear and unhappiness.

So as writers we successfully deceive our readers because we are motivated to lie and they are naturally trusting.

slug.png“Mine what you know,” we are told early in our writing careers. But the problem with daily events are that either they are narrative dead-ends or they are uncomfortable. It is very tempting, when staring at a blank page, to recount Granny’s marijuana grow-op or Little Tim’s first kiss. Some of the people we know come with a rich prefabricated history and fascinating characteristics. Far less effort to write about them then to invent a whole new character. But do we really want to betray the secrets of our loved ones? Wayson Choy, who’s latest book, Not Yet, is a memoir about his near-fatal heart failure, says we should not be afraid to delve into the truth no matter how uncomfortable or politically incorrect. The modern reader is highly intelligent and has an instinct for inauthenticity (Oprah excepted). Other writers have ground rules such as: “Don’t write about present spouses and parents, but all others are fair game.” (Ex-spouses beware).
slug.png

Tennesee Williams mined his sister’s mental illness for The Glass Menagerie and his aging Southern Belle mother for several characterizations. His work still resonates some fifty years later. Could this perhaps be because he wasn’t afraid to dirty his hands digging into the primal motives of his mother and sister?

slug.png
9781409100478_m_f.jpg
slug.png

Pen-names are one way for a writer to dish the dirt with impunity. A certain London call girl wisely uses the non-de-plume Belle De Jour for her tell-all blog, thus protecting herself from irate clients (and wives).  Oscar Wilde would be proud of her. He once said,  “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” Drag-queens know this all too well. Dame Edna Everage became famous lampooning the pretensions of Australian middle-class life but her alter ego, Barry Humphreys, probably would have been banished to the Outback for the same remarks.slug.png
dame-edna-everage-posters.jpg

slug.pngIt seems to me that the most successful set of lies ever told in world history is by religion— and I mean all religions, bar none. Every scripture uses mythology, metaphors, poetry, parables and symbolism to hint at that sublime truth that cannot be verbalized.

89f6c060ada01f137a2ec110.L._SX120_.jpg
slug.png

Joseph Campbell, his book series, The Masks of Gods, goes behind the mythology of world religions and uncovers surprising similarities. For example, we all know Jesus was a Virgin Birth. But so was Krishna (Lord Vishnu entered His mother’s womb as a beam of light while she was in a prison cell) and Lord Buddha emerged from the side of His mother. Whether or not immaculate conceptions are medically possible is not the point here. What is being highlighted here, in poetic terms, is that Christ, Krishna and Buddha are spiritual metaphors and not flesh and bones. Religious texts are a masterclass in the use of imagery, poetry and narrative fiction, all done with the motive of Absolute Truth.
slug.pngEvery sincere writer, I feel, needs to spend time contemplating the sublime truths that underlie existence. The time I spent  in an ashram, learning to unravel the mythology and symbols of scriptural language, I believe has enhanced the quality and authenticity of my writing. Meditation helps me penetrate the layers behind the routine and mundane happenings of daily life.
So yes, I am an ardent liar. But my lies are absolutely true.

Encounters With Books: in particular, those small ones that arrive in the mail with every season

magazine-comp.jpg

I am one of those people in whom the headline “Canadian literary magazines in peril” strikes a note of dreaded fear. And of course, because I’m one of those people, I read it first at Bookninja, that provisions in the Canadian Federal budget “will force Heritage Canada CMF to drop funding for magazines with circulations under 5,000, which is essentially every lit mag out there, as well as a whole host of others.”

Contemplating this, I felt like a puppy-lover watching The Humane Society burn down. I was galvanized enough to shortly thereafter click to join the Coalition to Keep Canadian Heritage Support for Literary and Arts Magazines on Facebook, an easy automatic gesture, and ever since then I’ve been thinking seriously about Canadian literary magazines, why they’re worth supporting, what they mean to me, and to the rest of Canada.

Because there really aren’t a lot of people like us, the 2670 coalition supporters on Facebook. I know this for a fact, because whenever my work is published in a literary magazine, my Mom spends a good week or two trying to track down the issue, and keeps me up to date on the chase– the Chapters employee who has never heard of the magazine (which my mom has never heard of either), and then the issue is late arriving in stock, and then there’s only one copy and someone else has bought it (and that was probably my Dad).

It is a very small world, that of those of us who’d gasp in horror at the thought of literary magazines in peril. It’s a tiny world, insular and incestuous, staffed by volunteers, where the writers are often the readers, particularly when “free” subscriptions are their pay. These magazines are labours of love, and those labours are perhaps the only not-tiny thing about them. In addition to the force of the work inside them, of course, and the painstaking detail of their layout and design, and the cost of printing, and the communities that build up around them. Of course, of course, but then I’m biased.

As a writer, I have been rejected by most of the best literary magazines in Canada. I’ve received handwritten notes, form letters, scraps of paper addressed to somebody else, and snarky missives scrawled in ballpoint. From all over the country, I have received envelopes addressed to me in my own handwriting (the SASE, sent with every submission, which writer Nathan Whitlock has noted is “kind of like making soldiers go into battle carrying their own body bags”). And I’ve kept track of every one of these rejections, because they stand up as proof that I’m writing, that I’m trying. Every rejected story getting worked over again, and then being sent out (with bodybag) even better than it was the last time.

Which must be true, because every once in a while, one of these stories gets accepted. Usually by email, and you can tell these are good news because they begin with “Congratulations…”, and don’t end with, “…and we decided it was just not right for us.” Thus beginning a correspondence with the magazine’s editorial staff (the volunteers, the labourers of love), who treat my work with such seriousness and consideration that it makes worthwhile every single hour I’ve spent at my writing desk. Who do me the honour of publishing my work, so I can feel less like someone who writes, and more like a writer.

I am an ordinary Canadian. As proof of this I offer the forty hours I spend at work every week, the importance to me of my friends and my family, a fondness for drinking beer outside on warm summer days, and a familiarity with the works of the band Trooper. And like so many other ordinary Canadians, I also like to make things. For twenty two of my thirty years, I’ve been writing poems and stories, perhaps in response to the literature I love so much to read, but also because by now I don’t know how not to. I think I’d write stories if I was the only person left in the world, if the stories just went on to live inside a drawer. But it means something enormous that they don’t have to.

Behind every rejection I’ve ever received is someone who folded a piece of paper into three and licked the envelope shut. Considering the number of rejections I’ve received, that licking and folding has required an enormous amount of manpower, and I am just one ordinary Canadian. From this you may begin to understand the amount of resources necessary to produce a magazine. And that there is really nothing small about these literary magazines after all, except their readership. If you consider 5000 small, that is, and I’m not sure that I actually do.

It is with some shame that I’ll admit to coming into the whole lit-mag thing a bit backwards. I’m sure I’m not alone in this either, that I didn’t actually start reading them until I wanted them to publish me. Certainly before, I didn’t realize what I was missing. Occupied by mainstream media (a considerable distraction) I hadn’t noted the book-sized hole in my life that could be filled with exciting poetry and fiction by new and established Canadian writers.

Literature begets literature, I firmly believe, and so that I came to the reading via writing isn’t the point. What is much more important is the fact that I’m hooked. That the arrival of these magazines in my mailbox brings a frisson of joy, and I devour them slowly (does that make sense? To hungrily savour?). That I still get far more rejections than I do acceptances, but I can participate in the literary community as much as a reader, and there’s such pleasure in that. That I should be magnanimous and note the numerous household name Canadian writers who’ve found their starts in small magazines, but instead I’ll tell you the ones I’m most glad I’ve found there– Anne Fleming, Terry Griggs, Amy Jones, Anne Germanacos, Christine Pountney, Heather Birrell, etc. Etc.

Government support of artists is a touchy subject, so I’ll avoid it, but less controversial– it has to be– is support of arts. This is a matter of principle. It’s about supporting endeavours that whole communities build up around, and even if these communities number less than 5000, well then, don’t also a large number of towns? These subscription bases don’t seem so small then, and neither do the magazines, so bursting with substance that they have to be stuffed into ordinary Canadian mailboxes all over the country. The mailboxes of ordinary Canadians like me who like to read things, and who like to make things, and receive an enormous amount of well-being from there being places to send our body bags to. Because body bags mean at least that we have bodies. It means at least that we are here.

They’re not for everyone, literary magazines, as evidenced by the (lack of) enthusiasm for them at the Peterborough Chapters. But any ordinary Canadian who reads has benefited from these platforms for emerging writing (…coming soon to your mainstream press). Any Canadian with an appreciation for the arts benefits from our country’s stellar literary reputation, and can catch a ride on its coattails. Any Canadian who values Canadianness must surely know that we’re a country founded of small communities, often isolated from one another, and that, at our best, it was mutual support that ensured our survival and created the nation we are today.

(Image by Stuart Lawler at Create Me This)

An Interview with Matt Shaw

For this post, I’ve taken the opportunity to pose some questions to Toronto fiction writer, Matt Shaw, whom I’ve never met, but whose debut short fiction collection, The Obvious Child (Exile Editions, 2007) I recently read and enjoyed. The collection’s opener immediately got my attention and I found myself increasingly intrigued by these darkly comic and elliptical stories. Matt was very thoughtful and candid in his answers to my questions. In the first half of this interview, Matt discusses his Journey-prize winning story, the writing workshop process, the perils and pleasures of absurdist fiction, as well as the central theme of his collection. The second half of the interview will be posted in the coming weeks.

books.png

“Matchbook for a Mother’s Hair,” your collection’s Journey-Prize-winning opener is a very fine story of the classic sort where there is a significant plot revelation toward the ending. Though this kind of story (I’m thinking, for example, of Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”) was once common in popular mid-twentieth century American magazines, it is unusual in contemporary literary fiction.

I never thought too much about the mousetrap ending myself, but I know other people have. I am sometimes asked to confirm if what a particular reader thinks happens in the story is what actually occurs. As though I’ve got a right answer and they’re trying to find out if they got it, too. If they get my “point.” And I always tell them that whatever it is they’re thinking they’re probably right. That answer doesn’t satisfy people. But I don’t care much one way or the other about the ending from a plot point of view, or making people feel better about what actually happens.

More important, as far as I’m concerned, is that no one seems uncertain about Gordon’s utter lack of realization and the confusion that does not subside, even as the reader himself starts to put together what’s going on. There is no Joycean epiphany for Gordon at the end of his story, no moment of realization about what is happening to him or why. The reader does have an epiphany – causally, the weight of the story, the dramatic irony, is fully realized only at the moment Gordon is led away forever in the nondescript car. The reader spends a good deal of time and effort figuring out just what Gordon is telling them. Once they think that they’ve put it together, it’s too late. Gordon’s gone.
Someone told me that whatever sympathy they felt for Gordon was tempered by the helplessness that they felt for themselves at the end of the story. In this way, the reader’s epiphany is a mousetrap. The reader is led to believe or hope that there will be some epiphany or satisfactory resolution for the character. But it never arrives. In fact, it’s the reader who’s put in the hot seat: the moment of knowing what the character cannot know and is unable to do anything about it – to tell Gordon about his fate. They want the resolution for themselves, but they can’t have it.

Perhaps the mousetrap is that the reader believes that, as he understands Gordon’s plight, he’ll feel sympathy for him. And maybe we do experience some sympathy for him, or at least pity, but not without some anxiety, or worse, selfishness on our part. The part of us that feels good when we do good things for others. Selfishness disgusts us when we see it in ourselves: the realization that we’re more like Mrs. Ween and her friends than we’d like to believe.

You acknowledge that “two dozen colleagues took friendly hacks” at this story. How do you successfully process this volume of editorial input? Did you deliberately set out to write a story with this kind of revelatory “mousetrap” ending, or did it evolve through the revision process?

I wrote “Matchbook for a Mother’s Hair” over two evenings in 2003 or 2004 for a creative writing class at York University. I sat down and I wrote the first two sentences, “Where do I start, my name is Gordon Ween. I am seventeen and three quarters.” I had been tossing those sentences around my head for a month or two, not writing anything. I was getting the rhythm of the voice right. It was all about the rhythm of the voice. I didn’t care about anything else: about character or story or theme. Once I had those two lines the way I wanted them, I wrote the rest of the story in about three hours. In terms of plot, “Matchbook” is pretty simple: a young boy, developmentally disabled and permanently confused (not at all the same thing), the women at the card table, the temptations/encounters/denials, the fatal accident, and the epiphany (or at least the place earmarked for it).

I had written the entire story on the sound, timbre, and rhythm of the voice alone, and in a few short hours at that. I expected people to have big things to say about the plot, about how shallow it was, how obvious the form was, or how indulgent the language. But most people seemed to understand what I was trying to do. Most of the responses simply listed several other nouns or adjectives that I could use because they sounded better, more in line with the rhythm. The only difference between the first draft and the final draft is maybe thirty words – which I changed with the help of my classmates – and punctuation. My publisher added most of the commas that appear in the published edition.

Of course, some of my classmates did a lot more than that for me during those years. It was important that I acknowledged them for that support. I trusted their opinions. It can be hard for a writer to trust another writer. The support meant a lot.

Characters in this collection are often helpless in the face of personal crises. In “One Trick Pony,” a concerned father is incapable of keeping his daughter from her obsessive juggling. In “The Deportee,” a legitimate citizen is unwilling to take action in order to keep himself from being deported. For much of “The Elevator,” the protagonist is unable to quit his job, despite multiple attempts. What’s interesting about the sense of paralysis that pervades these stories is that it seems to simultaneously result from both stifling external bureaucracies, as well as a kind of personal failure to act on the part of the protagonists. Do you conceive of this ‘helplessness’ as ultimately a personal failure on the part of the protagonists, or an external one resulting from the bureaucratic institutions to which these protagonists are beholden?

For me, the answer to that question is the crux of the entire book: somewhere in between. The central dilemma for many of these characters is to search for the boundary between fatalism and free will. Or the boundary between them as characters (letters that form words) and characters (as words that represent people) and the way they stand out from – and blend in with – their surroundings. A lot of the characters in the book – Dreschl most obviously – seem to almost recognize that they are book characters. Maybe the author from “After the Doctor Died in his Novel” understands that, too. Players on a stage or letters on a page.

Writing labeled “absurd” is too often associated simply with postmodern free play: if life is meaningless or beyond your control, the label says, you can at least feel free to get in the sandbox and mess around. And while the act of playing, of formal experimentation, of wit and tragedy and jokes and games is worthy enough, it is often dull.

For example, I don’t like to read Waiting for Godot as an aimless play in which the characters and reader are left waiting for something that never happens. I read the play and think that, in their banter, Estragon and Vladimir almost seem to be aware that something is going on in their world. It is a strange world and not quite right. They look at it a moment, to analyze it, but they can never analyze it very long. It’s like looking at the sun. But they come up with some ideas about. In fact, they make a good deal of sense, even if it their way of thinking, their associations, their vicious wordplay, seem alien to us. But they experience anxiety. They talk about it. And they do some strange things. They seem to start the play with a preconceived notion of what the boundary of their sandbox is and, knowing that, mess around, almost “for fun.” The characters in my book are much more earnest. Most try a little harder. The father in “One Trick Pony” does eventually try to do something: he makes a serious resolution to rescue his daughter. He fails, but he tests the boundary. He tests it more than Saul from “The Elevator.” Saul is not even convinced about his own beliefs, nor is he remotely as self-aware as Barb’s father. The woman in “Talmud,” on the other hand, is pretty successful. She bends the rules of her fictional world to her own needs.

In short, I’d rather let the characters discover the boundaries of whatever peculiar world belongs them and to decide for themselves how hopeless or meaningless it is than to have everyone be entirely convinced of the eventual result before the story even starts. So the characters must be capable of both failure (which can be caused by their own hand or a total lack of personal choice) and a window, however small, for success. Otherwise there’s no real story. Just play. There’s nothing fun about watching other people play if you can’t join in yourself.      -Matt Shaw

And the SAGA continues

slug.pngI first met Nila Gupta during the Eighties when we were both young and without a voice. I had started a peer group called S.A.G.A for South Asian gays and lesbians (later renamed Khush) because as minorities within a minority we felt alienated from all sides. Hence we created our own space, our own sense of community and identity. Participation in this small ad-hoc group helped give voice to a movie director (Iqbal Rashid), a novelist (Shyam Selvadurai), NDP federal MP candidate (El-Farouk Khaki), and now Nila Gupta, finalist for the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for Best First Book –The Sherpa and Other Fictions.
Nila, like the titular Sherpa woman from her short story collection, is a humble observer of life, daily making the uphill trek along the roads of Jammu and Kashmir with a load on her back. My writing group invited Nila as a guest speaker to talk to us about her journey from a writing workshop to the elite club of published authors.

slug.png
nila 003.jpg

The opening story, The Sherpa, was first published by Descant back in the Fall of 2002 (issue #118) when Nila was quietly figuring out her craft in writing workshops at George Brown and Ryerson. The story resonated with Mary Newberry, then Managing Editor, and was rushed from the slush pile to publication in a record three months because it fit the theme of The Writing of the Walls, an anthology exploring graffiti and other subversive witnesses to history. The success of her very first submission encouraged Nila to write more stories set in the beautiful but lately war-torn region of Northern India. She put together a collection of nine linked stories but it took another four years to find a suitable publisher. Though many publishing houses were interested in her collection, Nila told my writing group that it is important for an author to have rapport with the editor. Ideally, the editor should be a champion of your work as well as a critical eye. This complex relationship is not easy to negotiate.

She, like most writers, is by nature a solitary creature happiest when weaving her tales on the computer. But writing involves this whole other business side that most of us are not prepared for. Publishers love new writers to walk in without agents or legal representations. They are hoping that the writer will be so awed and humbled at the prospect of being published that he or she will sign without reading the fine print. The Writer’s Union of Canada cautions writers that if they do not have the temperament to negotiate contracts, check and collect royalties, then a literary agent or “persons experienced with publishing matters” should be employed. The catch here is that in Canada an unknown author has little chance of securing a literary agent. Nila used an entertainment lawyer to negotiate  on her behalf with an editor she was comfortable working with. Sumach Press, known for publishing feminist authors, was a perfect fit for her book.

slug.png
sherpaR.jpg
The other irony is that even after careful negotiations, no writer makes enough to live on. The average earning for a Canadian writer, including teaching workshops, is $18,000-22,000 per year. While many in my writing group bemoan having to juggle a career with finding time to write, Nila has the opposite problem. Though she is working on a novel and now has agents and publishers banging at her door (thanks to her nomination for the Commonwealth Writer’s Prize) she still needs to find an alternate source of income to sustain her writing habit. She recently completed an MFA, not to learn the craft of writing, but to have the credentials needed to teach creative writing.
Desilit, the literature of the first generation South Asian diaspora, was often self-conscious of alienation and about being in conflict between two cultures (think of ‘Darkness’ by Bharati Mukherjee). There was a certain generation of gay literature that similarly reveled in the “woe is me” genre (think of Brick in Tennesse Willams’ “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”). In contrast, Nila’s protagonists discover latent strengths that empower them to persevere living lives of quiet dignity and integrity. Solitude and alienation is not the same thing. Being unique can endow a person with a perspective and voice that illuminates the world as it truly is.

We had originally named our group SAGA, acronym for South Asian Gay Alliance because we felt that our lives were full of heroics. When Nila joined, we wanted to be inclusive of women and so we changed the name to Khush, which in Hindi means gay or happy. While Khush disbanded some ten years ago, the voice it raised continues to shout on the international stage. May the SAGA never end.