-
March 30th, 2011Uncategorized
I wrote a little remembrance of my first political fight for Slate’s XX Factor blog; enjoy!
-
March 24th, 2011Interviews, writingI spoke with Jaimy Gordon, the author of National Book Award winning and PEN/Faulkner nominated Lord of Misrule for The Express, and thought I’d share the whole, uncut interview…for the superfans!What drew you to the world of horse-racing?Tags: authors!, awesome, Jaimy Gordon, Lord of Misrule, The Express, writing
I’ve always liked watching horses run. It was part of my childhood; I took the bus almost every day past Pimlico race track. I came from a side of horse players on my mother’s side– not that I knew anything of that growing up. I’m fascinated by animals and I love writing about them. But none of it would have been written had I not landed in the place I did. When I was a nomadic young woman I met a young man who was very good looking and very charismatic who worked at a racetrack, and he drew me in. The first conversation I overheard at the track was like a foreign conversation; I didn’t understand a single thing they were talking about. It was this world of large animals and salty, rich and fascinating vocabulary.Was he the inspiration for the handsome, charming young character of Tommy in Lord of Misrule?
Certainly he was; I’m probably not supposed to say that!Part of the novel was featured in America’s Best Short Stories 1995; how long have you been working on it?
Actually, though it features two characters from the book, the loan shark and the blacksmith, the story isn’t in the novel. I was just kind of edging up on racetrack material. But the story pleased me and I was pretty sure I could get something out of it. I’m so lazy– I wanted to fold it in; it would have saved me 30 pages of writing! But I couldn’t make it work. I started the first page of the novel in 1997, had a draft by 2001, then in 2004 I took some out and shaped it into a story called Mr. Bollweavle. Then I was tired of writing about a reckless young woman character– some version of the woman I was in my youth; it was embarrassing. So I let it sit for five years.So how did it get picked up again?
McPherson had seen that first draft and wanted it, and they basically had it printed up in galley form and sent it to me. That galvanized me, and I was able to work very fast over the next two and half to three months, making big changes right up until it was finally published. That was why it was such a shock to win the National Book Award; I felt like I had barely finished it.I remember reading about your excitement about just being there in The Times coverage– you seemed more surprised than anyone when you won.
It was incredible! I thought the judges had been done for me than could be imagined in just choosing me as a finalist. It was a small press book, I was the least well-known of the writers, and my little book was about a dinky little racetrack in 1970 in West Virginia! I don’t mean to undermine the book; it was very consciously written. But all my work has been consciously written and it hasn’t done all that well in the press!You’ve been a real journeyman writer– how did it change your career?
I had reached the stage in life where I began to think, ‘what’s going to become of me?’ If i don’t have a big success, will my books disappear? Maybe I wasn’t cut out of the right cloth to be an American writer– Overnight that was taken care of, and all these thoughts of doom evaporated. . I was very happy. Since the National Book Award I’ve been so busy– I’ve been in demand to talk and read; it’s completely changed my life.I hope you’re enjoying the whirlwind!
Yes, though my house is a total mess and my animals are going feral! -
March 24th, 2011Good people, Interviews, writing
I got the chance to talk to Sarah Vowell, and then I got the chance to write it up, and then it was edited by my awesome friend and editor, and then she went on vacation, and then the other editor decided to make it totally different! Oh well. Here’s the changed version, which I wrote maaaaayyyybe 15% of: http://www.expressnightout.com/content/2011/03/sarah-vowell-unfamiliar-fishes-politics-prose.php
And here’s mine (edited by the first editor), which I like more, and which has the HILARIOUS SUCCOTASH LINE:
Tags: changes, editing, freelance life, let it goFor author and humorist Sarah Vowell, history comes alive when it collides with modern life. When one finds herself quietly sipping a bubble tea on the spot where John Wilkes Booth plotted his assassination of President Lincoln, for example.
Vowell happened upon the site — now an unassuming Chinatown restaurant — while taking an afternoon break from researching her 2005 book, “Assassination Vacation,” a history-wonk romp across America to the sites where Presidents Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley met their untimely ends.
Vowell has spent more than a decade capturing absurd confluences of American history and pop culture in five bestselling nonfiction books, including 2003’s The Partly Cloudy Patriot and 2009’s The Wordy Shipmates. Vowell’s literary trademark is her nerdy enthusiasm for little-known facts, but you might also recognize her signature squeaky voice, which she’s lent to NPR’s “This American Life” series and to Pixar’s 20TK animated film “The Incredibles.”
Vowell, who lived in Washington in the early ’90s while interning at the Smithsonian, returns Saturday to discuss her newest book, “Unfamiliar Fishes” at Politics and Prose. And though she’s been a New Yorker for more than 10 years, Vowell says that the D.C. area captured her imagination with its rich — and often quirky — history. She cites Walter Reed’s National Museum of Health and Medicine as one can’t-miss spot on any D.C. tour, mostly for the fragments of Lincoln’s skull on view there.
Vowell’s research on Lincoln and Booth also led her a bit farther afield, to Port Royal, Va., where she visited “a weird little shrine to John Wilkes Booth where he died.”
“It’s kind of creepy to see a shrine to a murderer, and a very racist one at that,” she recalls.
An investigative jaunt across the border to Maryland revealed more regional idiosyncrasies.
“I thought John Waters films were outlandish until I actually went to Maryland,” Vowell says. “Maryland is pretty weird. It’s very old-fashioned in a lot of ways.” Ways enshrined in the state song, “which calls for the assassination of the ‘despot’ Lincoln,” notes Vowell.
And then there are the nods to history that are more subtly flavored: In her research for “Assassination Vacation,” Vowell also visited the home of Samuel A. Mudd, who treated an injured Booth after he shot Lincoln. En route to the site, Vowell stopped at a quaint roadhouse restaurant., where the vegetable of the day was succotash.
“Not some nouveau interpretation of succotash,” she deadpans. “Just straight, unironic succotash. That’s very Maryland to me.”
Politics & Prose, 5015 Connecticut Ave. NW; Sat., 6 p.m., free; 202-364-1919 (Van Ness)Sidebar: Vowell’s newest book, “Unfamiliar Fishes,” traces Hawaii’s long, strange journey toward statehood.
What piqued your interest in Hawaii?
I’m kind of pre-occupied with the year 1898. It’s a fascinating study of power. Our country is founded by colonials trying to break free, and we transformed into a colonial power ourselves. In that year we invaded Cuba and the Philippines and went into Guam, Puerto Rico and Hawaii to build naval bases. The no. 1 reason why Hawaii was the only one of those places to become a state was because of how Americanized it already was in 1898, because of the Missionaries who had been there since the 1830s. After a meeting with the Missionary boys who collaborated with the Americans to overthrow the Queen of Hawaii, the American Minister wrote to Washington, “The Hawaiian pear is now ready to be plucked.” So this is the story of that ripening.Your last book, “The Wordy Shipmates,” was about the Puritans, and Hawaii was settled by Massachusetts missionaries.
What I admired about those original Puritans was how bookish and learned they are. They’re not perfect; you probably wouldn’t want to have lunch with them. But they did teach the Hawaiian people to read within a generation. Before that, because the Hawaiians didn’t have a written language, they created one. They translated the bible into Hawaiian not from English, but from Hebrew and Greek. That’s why Harvard was founded — to have a place where their ministers could lean Hebrew and Greek. So for all their faults, I find that loveable. -
March 6th, 2011This is not a mom blog, babies, writing
Wow, the internet and I are in such a huge fight! A piece I wrote for The Hairpin, something I thought would be read as satire and summarily ignored, has ignited a war in the comments section. The last time I checked it had garnered 186 comments (I stopped reading them for the sake of my will to live), which makes it the most commented piece on the site right now, ahead of the truly astounding “Ask an Abortion Provider.” That’s just absurd, especially since over half the people have logged on only to say how much they hate it, me, the kind of mom they think I am, the kind of piece it is, and the very fact that it was published. I’m not going to dwell on the irony of internet traffic here: that by getting up in arms about how much you hate something you are only driving up its popularity. Instead, despite the part of me that thinks I shouldn’t have to explain myself, I wanted to just write about my intentions with the piece.
I honestly intended the piece as satire. Here’s a pretty good working definition, which also sums up some of with the problems I ran into:
“In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon…A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—”in satire, irony is militant”… This “militant” irony or sarcasm often professes to approve (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.…Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing – because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood.…Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that “it’s just not funny” for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking.”
My intent in writing the piece was to satirize both the outsized scorn a small but vocal pocket of priviliged urbanites express towards those who choose to have children, in addition to the self-righteous, harried mommy-warrior types of those same enclaves. The point was to show the absurdity of both poles, to exaggerate the voice in order to illustrate the ridiculousness of these stereotypes, and to adopt a militant irony in the tone. I understand that it is really annoying to encounter new agey mother-goddess types who seem to think their pregnancy makes them just a smidge less holy than the Virgin Mary, just as it is incomprehensible that some people get seriously angry when they see a woman walking with a stroller through their own neighborhood, as though she and her baby were criminal yuppie interlopers.
And yes, like all satire, it hews sharp, and mean, and reads as though it might be real. In that way it was a success, I think. And it’s (obviously) completely valid to think it’s not funny, or to think it missed the mark. I don’t understand how people don’t get that it was satire (the Editor definitely got it, as did many readers), but it’s not for me to guess at the hows here.
What I find really shocking is the amount of vitriol in the comments. As a writer, it is completely bizarre to have a persona you created for the sake of a satire be completely mistaken for your own and summarily attacked by strangers who feel compelled to make sweeping judgements about your whole being. This is not a pity party, and I’m not going to get into how completely needlessly cruel it is to log on to a website in order to write awful things you would never say to people in real life (unless you are a horrible monster), but God, the internet is nasty (OK, that was a little bit of a pity party).
But here, because I am trying to not let the bastards get me down, I will end on a positive note. Along with all the misreading, insult hurling, and personal mean-messaging (I had one lady sign up for twitter JUST TO CALL ME A HORRIBLE HYPOCRITE! That’s dedication/an anger problem!), I have also heard from all sorts of people who got it and liked it, including some tremendously talented moms who write in a very real and far more sensitive way on the subjects I was joking about (like this one!). I really hope that this doesn’t leave a sour taste in Edith’s mouth about bringing a parenting perspective onto the site; there are so many voices out there that I would love to see get more attention (and not just those of moms). In the end, all those nasty Do Not Want comments actually succeeded in getting me more traffic, thicker skin, and a trial by internet fire. My son also contributed to this– what kind of role model would I be if I let strangers and critics keep me from doing what I love? I want to be courageous for him, and if that means drinking the haterade every so often, so be it.
Tags: A Mom Responds Before Crowding You Out of Your Local Coffeeshop/Bar, comment wars, controversy, haterz, moms, parents, satire, The Hairpin -
I decided to hide out from the mama heat for a bit in the safe confines of sports writing, where no one ever gets irrationally upset (hahahahaha! I feel I have to add that now every time I’m being sarcastic/kidding). It was super fun to attend a game as a member of the press (did you know they give you free chili and sodas and sheet cake and donuts?! Members of the press eat very unhealthy food!). Even though the Timberwolves lost and I wasn’t able to photograph any naked players in the locker room (prudes), it was a fantastic experience. Basketball!
Tags: adventures, basketball, sports, timberwolves, wizards -
follow:
RSS