In writing these stories, I write what I know, both settings and characters, and then I expand on these things using my imagination. Particularly in regard to the characters, I often, though not always, use a real-life person as my starting point. For example, Anthony Smitha was my starting point for Texas Schola Dawg. But Texas Schola Dawg is NOT Anthony. I tried to make this point by including Anthony himself within one of my stories along with Texas Schola Dawg. Now, Anthony is a particularly rich source for characterization and was a good starting point, but that is all. So I do want to caution my readers against assuming that a particular character IS someone whom they know.
That is simply not the case. Even when Anthony himself made an appearance, I expanded on some of his traits using my imagination. Things which were obviously false. Anthony never owned a "be-bop record shop." As far as I know, such things ceased existing even before I was born. I don't think Anthony was ever a small-time pool hustler. I do know he is a devout Catholic who has very eclectic interests. So, even in drawing a character who is real, I used things which, strictly speaking, are false, but humorous, and draw out the truth of his eclectic interests and commitments.
(I suppose I could have said, "Anthony Smitha, amateur body builder, devout Catholic, and motor cycle enthusiast" which would have been true and funny, but for some reason I wanted to go for the even more outrageous, "small-time pool hustler, devout Catholic, and one-time proprietor of a be-bop record shop" precisely because it was false and thus even more humorous - and yet, in a sense, true - at least in terms of the variety of his interests.)
Sometimes my characterizations are funny because they are totally false: Bruce Hacker as a German spy, Greg Townsend as a secret agent for the Red Chinese. Some of the characters, like Uzi, have no starting point in real life and some do, like Polly, but I would never publicly reveal this and it's unimportant. Polly could have been based on a number of different women I know and if the real starting point is revealed, then people will always be making a comparison, "so-and-so would never do that, etc." That's not the point. The person who is the starting point is merely a frame upon which modelling clay is added, so to speak, to create a character.
Still you have to be careful. Sometimes I will change a person's name, but they are pretty close to the real thing (e.g. President Mike McConnell). It would be very dangerous for me to make him do something bad of his own free will, for instance.
Irish Setter O'Shaughnessy clearly is very much based on a real man with comic exaggerations added - but the comic exaggerations, though extreme, are based on a real dichotomy in the man's life. Obviously his name (and his species) were also changed.
The whole dog thing has perplexed me. I liked the Underdog cartoon and wanted to use that graphic. It inspired the whole series, but, really, dogs going to a Catholic college and praying in the chapel? Or functioning as chaplains? Speaking to human beings? It is all so fantastic. I just stopped worrying about it at a certain point. It's not supposed to all logically cohere.
As for my writing style, I wouldn't mind some comments. Obviously, I am a bit of a devotee of the incomplete sentence. (I know that classically a sentence needs a noun and a verb.) Even the one word sentence. Even the one word paragraph.
Really.
I know I took this directly from Ralph McInnerny, although he probably got this from Hemmingway. Am I right? I like alliteration also. Anyway, if my writing style is analyzable (or worth analyzing) let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Haha, so you took our advice for the disclaimer! ;) I think we can tell the Uzi stories are your way of lightening up this blog and indulging us in the fantastic. I enjoy your writing style, it seems very natural. I might not overuse the sentence fragment, but I can see how it helps the pacing of your stories.
Coincidentally, today I just finished reading Hemingway's A Moveable Feast on audio tape. I didn't notice a proliferation of incomplete sentences, though he did admit that adjectives were his enemy. His writing is very unlike yours, in that his approach (at least in this book) seemed to be to take snapshots, stark and vivid, of his real-life experiences and acquaintances, with a minimum of judgment or analysis. It seems that you generally take an analytical starting point and then extract particulars and characterizations. The benefit to your way is that if you correctly abstract the universal from the particular, your characters (and caricatures) can be instructive and incisive. On the other hand, the benefit to Hemingway's approach is that he never strays far from actual fact (always writing what he knows). Of course, I am talking about two very different things . . . :)
Very interesting, Sylvia. I hadn't read Hemingway in years. It must be someone else who is famous for sentence fragments.
Oh, I'm sure he does use sentence fragments plenty, I just didn't happen to notice them this time. Hemingway is very heavy writing to me, probably because I don't normally read authors whose hope in life is so subtle (if it's there at all). Greene is another tough one. I have no problem with Hemingway's style: the content, on the other hand, is not my favorite. In this book, he kept foreshadowing the nice and good things that happened during his time in Paris with hints that it would all later fall apart. In fact, I looked up his biography on Wikipedia and his marriage did fall apart after the affair Hemingway indicated he had in A Moveable Feast.
Dr. Poterack, I will admit to pairing up people in your Uzi stories with people whom I know (who shall remain nameless at this time), although I will also admit to never assuming a direct correlation. The President, Polly, and even the Irish Setter (who seems to be the closest to reality of all your characterizations) all definitely come associated with names, faces (albeit, doggy at times), actions, speaking styles, etc. that are pulled directly from people whom I know.
In reality, though, while it's much easier to do this with your stories, I do this with every book that I read.
1) Crime & Punishment: I had an old friend of mine back in TX set in the role of Razhumikin.
2) Princess Bride: aside from the movie faces, I had several friends in this novel.
3) Emma: Mary Beth assumes many roles in this work, simply because she got me started on J.A.
Etc.
So I hope you don't find it offensive that I tend to make these associations automatically -- I do it with basically every piece of story-literature that I read. Admittedly, it's hard to do with a book that I'm reading now, Feast of Faith, by the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, long may he reign.
As for your literary style, I don't think you overuse anything. Your sentence fragments often are the catalyst for my bursting out laughing, and they really do add a lot to the story. In the cases of the one word paragraphs like in this particular post, it is just another step in increasing my suspension of disbelief, thus giving your creative genius all sorts of liberties with my over-active imagination. Heck, you practically had me believing that I was a small-time pool hustler...
In any case, I hope you don't change your writing style to the exclusion of any of your current methods (alliteration, fragments, etc.). It would be a sad day. :( And I might cwy teaws of sadness.
Really.
Post a Comment