What Are You Working On?
|
My last play was produced in 1989, but I will return to the theater or die trying. I was not a great playwright, mainly because I had a very poor understanding of what actors really did on a stage. I came from an empnhatically literary position and assumed the actor's job was just to say what I had written down. When writing for the stage, however, what is most important is to give actors something to do. I don't mean "run across the stage and pull out a revolver" or any simple sort of stage business; I mean they have to have a sense of what is being built on the stage, the structure of action that the audience must see almost immediately -- if they don't, the play will fail, no matter how enchanting the language. But to answer your question about the transition from stage writing to book writing: the biggest difference is that in a novel or a story, you can write everything you need to write. In the theater, the more you write, very often the worse it is. In a book, you have no other recourse: if you want something understood, you write it out. If you write yourself into a corner, you can write yourself out. Plays require architecture and carpentry; the thing has to be sound. A novel is more forgiving of uncertainty and (even awkward) explorations. A story about a motorcycle racer has been forming in my mind and notebooks for twenty years; I was so entranced by the prospect of racing motorcycles for a living that I almost failed to graduate from high school. I also have read a great deal of anarchist literature -- Proudhon and Kropotkin and Berkman and Goldman and Bakunin -- all the big names and lots of less well-known ones as well, especially precursors, like Winstanley and Godwin. I was also active in the theater. It took a while for it all to coalesce in the novel as it now stands, but the intention has been clear to me for a long long time. Trying to make my depiction of life as it was lived a hundred years ago persuasive, and yet not turn it into a conventional "historical novel" with lots of carefully researched details overwhelming the profundity of character. A secondary problem has been reconciling the deeds of actual historical persons with fictional characters, the result being an almost total absence of historical persons: each draft has erased more and more verifiable and documented history, and introduced more imagined history. I wrote long from the start. The title story in the Visigoth collection was once part of a novel, the first one I tried to write, and two of the novellas I've published ("Free Fall" in Visigoth and another, I Am Death, or Bartleby the Mobster: a story of Chicago in Santa Monica Review) were both two-hundred-pagers at one time. I have two other novels on the shelf. They're in terrible disarray, but have survived, and I will start in on one of them when I find a publisher for The Daredevils. I also have two stories I'm working right now--while I'm working on the novel. They are both turning into novellas (Peasnts: a story of Russian sensibility written in the French manner, and Conversations in California, an homage to Elio Vittorini). My natural mode is long. I work intuitively, searching for the sense of inevitability that all good writing requires; and what I find difficult is seizing upon a story that has the inevitability present right from the start. The bliss of making a world strong enough and lively enough to balance the weakness and dullness of the one I actually live in. I'll be done in a month. I'm hoping that Visigoth will attract some attention, and generate some interest in the novel. I will be reading at BEA, at Bookslut, at the LA Times Book Festival, and a few other places. I like readings -- I probably should have thrown myself into acting as well as writing, but I couldn't find the emotional energy to do both. LinksJan. 2006 interview on AuthorTrek See more What Are You Working On? interviews. |
published 23 Mar 06 on Too Beautiful. email copyright 2006 Mark Pritchard, Bernal Heights, San Francisco |