Some Days You're Music Hall, Some Days You're Not
Damn, I wish I'd saved my nub rant for SBD. Perfect one, huh? Anyway, the bitches have the subject of the nickname (Love Nubbin Jolie Pitt) settled. I'm using that phrase first chance I get. Maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll get sued and that'll give my book some fab publicity.
Another Attempt at SBD: romance schmomance
( or, I'll pass on the gothick, thank you)
I'm writing a book instead of cleaning the house. But my poor characters are going down, down for the third time.
I strive for more PG Wodehouse. ‘I believe there are two ways of writing novels. One is mine, making a musical comedy without music and ignoring real life altogether; the other is going right deep down into life and not caring a damn…’
I want musical comedy. I strive for fluff. I believe in dark and light, but I prefer producing fluff.
Usually I can shape the same reality into any number of patterns. Even non-fiction romance can be messed with. Hey, I had the opportunity to observe a chunk of a marriage that lasted fifty-five years. Over the course of years, I viewed that marriage in a variety of ways.
1. a tragic linking of two utterly different people. Both came from homes bereft of love and they should never have married. They had no common interests; they did not respect one anothers' strengths; they loved but did not like one another (actually they thought I was very clever when I presented that viewpoint to them...yikes). One showed frightening rages that alienated his family, even as he pursued his partner for displays of affection that she could not give. . . she was incapable. A struggle that was never resolved and that meant neither partner could ever be emotionally fulfilled.
2. a 55-year relationship that remained strong and loving despite hard times. The two people involved never really understood one another but they were loyal to the very end. At his deathbed, his last words were worrying about her. She went into a decline after his death and in her dementia occasionally asked about him. When reminded by a clueless daughter that he was dead, she cried again as if the pain was fresh.
3. Two people who were entirely clueless about the nature of love due to their upbringing but who managed to bumble along for 55 years. No, wait, let's make it even more heart warming. . .His rants were funny as hell, her quirky retreat into vague answers were silly and endearing. . . he provided emotion, she provided thought and together they made a single wonderful loving unit (dumb word, but you get the idea).
Interview with the author:
Which scenerio would you rather write?
The last one, by far.
Which do you feel you can write convincingly?
Today? Maybe the second, but probably only the first.
Which one do you believe hold the seeds of truth?
I think all three are true--and they're just a start. I could think about my parents' interactions and come up with even more views. PLUS bet there are dozens of other observers (my brother who's 14 years older than me for instance would have an entirely different view--as would my sister who's 10 years younger than me.). They could probably truthfully describe the same relationship in a way that would not even resemble mine.
How can all three views be true?
Fifty-five years is a long-ass time. But that's not the real reason--they could manage to show all three sorts of relationships in a single hour, depending on the observer.
What's your point?
I'm Henrik Ibsen today, not Metzger. I wanna be Metzger, dammit!
Another Attempt at SBD: romance schmomance
( or, I'll pass on the gothick, thank you)
I'm writing a book instead of cleaning the house. But my poor characters are going down, down for the third time.
I strive for more PG Wodehouse. ‘I believe there are two ways of writing novels. One is mine, making a musical comedy without music and ignoring real life altogether; the other is going right deep down into life and not caring a damn…’
I want musical comedy. I strive for fluff. I believe in dark and light, but I prefer producing fluff.
Usually I can shape the same reality into any number of patterns. Even non-fiction romance can be messed with. Hey, I had the opportunity to observe a chunk of a marriage that lasted fifty-five years. Over the course of years, I viewed that marriage in a variety of ways.
1. a tragic linking of two utterly different people. Both came from homes bereft of love and they should never have married. They had no common interests; they did not respect one anothers' strengths; they loved but did not like one another (actually they thought I was very clever when I presented that viewpoint to them...yikes). One showed frightening rages that alienated his family, even as he pursued his partner for displays of affection that she could not give. . . she was incapable. A struggle that was never resolved and that meant neither partner could ever be emotionally fulfilled.
2. a 55-year relationship that remained strong and loving despite hard times. The two people involved never really understood one another but they were loyal to the very end. At his deathbed, his last words were worrying about her. She went into a decline after his death and in her dementia occasionally asked about him. When reminded by a clueless daughter that he was dead, she cried again as if the pain was fresh.
3. Two people who were entirely clueless about the nature of love due to their upbringing but who managed to bumble along for 55 years. No, wait, let's make it even more heart warming. . .His rants were funny as hell, her quirky retreat into vague answers were silly and endearing. . . he provided emotion, she provided thought and together they made a single wonderful loving unit (dumb word, but you get the idea).
Interview with the author:
Which scenerio would you rather write?
The last one, by far.
Which do you feel you can write convincingly?
Today? Maybe the second, but probably only the first.
Which one do you believe hold the seeds of truth?
I think all three are true--and they're just a start. I could think about my parents' interactions and come up with even more views. PLUS bet there are dozens of other observers (my brother who's 14 years older than me for instance would have an entirely different view--as would my sister who's 10 years younger than me.). They could probably truthfully describe the same relationship in a way that would not even resemble mine.
How can all three views be true?
Fifty-five years is a long-ass time. But that's not the real reason--they could manage to show all three sorts of relationships in a single hour, depending on the observer.
What's your point?
I'm Henrik Ibsen today, not Metzger. I wanna be Metzger, dammit!
I'm the opposite--I wish I could write dark, but whenever I try, my characters say something snarky. So I've given up. I will never be Anne Stuart. Good luck with the writing.
ReplyDeleteYou're not Ibsen. Ibsen was an ass. I still have nightmares about doing a production of A Doll's House. (shudder) Thank God I worked on a crew with a guy who felt the need to turn it into an eighties pop musical. Good times.
ReplyDeleteSo go ahead, write the dark. All comedy comes from a really dark place and the need to avoid it or channel it productively. How else could my light technition turn a Doll's House into a musical.