another week at gopher

Another week has past at Gopher College (that's its mascot actually, though I keep on calling it a gerbil)...more workshops, more lectures and more readings.  There were so many readings last week that I snuck off for a swim on Friday evening instead (faithful to my national identity to the last; I also take berocca and vegemite to breakfast).

I remain impressed by the calibre of the Faculty, as they're called here, as writers, both their attention to craft and their professional associations  I don't know if any of these writers are known outside the country; they may not even be known that well within the country, tho a couple of them are current or former writers for the New Yorker. (I'm excited about the possibility of working with some of these people in the future and what I'll learn -- truly.)  One of the interesting differences here is that people seem content to be known within their own 'world': there's not a sense that you need to reach Jonathan Franzen-like notoriety to be a successful or established writer.  It doesn't matter if writers outside your genre don't know you; it's enough to be known within your own genre. Whereas I feel that in Australia, there's more a sense that a successful writer is known generally across the literary scene, published in national newspapers, etc, though this is probably an economy of scales thing.

All of these established writers said there were times when they'd struggled to get work published after they were known as writers, in some cases, even in former publications they'd been associated.  GT, our guest speaker, said he'd hawked round one of what he'd thought was his best pieces to about eight literary editors he knew before he'd found a home for it -- in a greatly reduced form. Even fame doesn't mean you'll be published.  One of the writers said she'd been depressed to find how much talent was out there once she started teaching writing, and concluded that persistence, a thick skin and a bit of luck were all necessary if you wanted to become a writer.  I'd thought that the States might be something of a land flowing with milk and honey when it came to publishing writing, but the Americans seem to be saying the same kinds of things about their publishing world that you hear said in Australia: not as much fiction is being sold; sales have slowed in general over the past three years; articles are becoming shorter because people don't have the attention spans they used to.  So perhaps we're just following in their wake, as usual.

I've probably been most intrigued by the seriousness with which nonfiction is taken as a genre, and the strong underpinnings of creative nonfiction (CNF) in reportage.  There are two main streams in how CNF is perceived within this program: memoir and literary journalism.  Cross-genre writing is acceptable, of course, but generally, this is the lay of the land, as far as teaching CNF goes.   Memoir is seen to be waning as a genre at the moment: a decade ago, autobiographical fiction was on the ascendancy, then memoir, but now people are saying that both genres are glutted.  Personally, I'm quite happy about this: there's a lot of talented people in the program, but I get the idea that some people just don't have anything to write about so they chose some crappy subject from their life (some of these have been fairly banal, more the subject for an article than a thesis or book I would have thought).  I like to say to my own students that it's not what you write about but how you write about it that makes it interesting, but there are some subjects I'm not so sure can be salvaged.  (I'm seeking to do literary journalism myself, with the occasional moment of memoir, where appropriate, so I'm trying to claim the moral high ground here.) The program, incidentally, doesn't feel itself to be equipped to teach biography tho they don't discourage any students from doing a biographical project if that's what they want to do.

Anyway, back to the significance of reportage: literary journalism is sourced fairly strongly in journalistic rather than literary writing here. It's almost totally contra to what a CW identity from the Australian southern Gothic capital said to one of my students when she asked him what he thought about CNF: 'it's just adding a bit of flavour; a bit of a fad.'  There are shades of positioning within the CNF spectrum on literary journalism, but basically, there's a strong emphasis on journalistic values such as being as objective as possible (while understanding that your reality is only partial), being neutral and non-judgemental in tone, being faithful to sources in recounting dialogue (or stating otherwise), whether there's a case for going 'undercover' sometimes (i.e. not telling your subjects you're writing about them), getting all sides of the story (e.g. perpetrators and victims), not getting involved in your interviewee's lives.  Some people, including GT (in contradistinction to his wife), hold a strong view that nonfiction is nonfiction and there's no place for writing that isn't factual within the genre. I brought up the case of composite (or 'com-pos-it', as the Americans seem to be saying: I thought they were talking about some kind of chowder, at first) subjects in relation to The First Stone (which they hadn't heard of, not surprisingly: Tom Keneally's possibly the only Australian writer they've heard of), and people were very wary of this kind of tactic and even the inverse (collapsing several identities into one), unless it really served to protect someone's identity.  Oh, and they even critique Janet Malcolm here -- for 'wilfully disregarding the good things that can come out of the interview process.'  And Truman Capote was totally morally bankrupt in his interviewing techniques -- no one would emulate them.  And no one's very pleased that he fabricated the end of In Cold Blood, either.

So, CNF's not just something you do to give your writing flavour: not at all.  It's more about what makes  good non-fiction. Generally, I would say the standard of writing here is good: I was worried that it would either be a lot worse or a lot better than mine and I'd feel totally out of things, but I'd say we were all of a certain level: most people have something going for them, they just need to be more versed in the craft and to practise a bit more.  And they haven't published a book yet.

While I'm still vaguely on the subject of reportage: people seem to be taking notes word for word from lectures (even the 'uh's), which I find truly amazing, having been taught only to write the significant information down and in a way that you'll remember it.  If I spent all my time trying to write accurate notes, I wouldn't hear anything.  But I guess this is all part of their journalistic training.

And wildlife -- I have seen deer from the fabled Gopher College herd.  I've realised that they're our equivalent of kangaroos: large herbivores roaming the land. And the squirrels are extremely cute if a little rat-like: I've seen one take a half-eaten nectarine from a bin and devour it in its paws and another climbing up a tree with a piece of yellow bunting in its mouth, presumably to line a nest of some description.

Comments

[ThirdCat]

I'll always remember the 'undercover' stuff I did as part of my journalism studies. It just seems so wrong to me to even consider not telling your subjects that you'll be writing about them. I think that's made easier by never having wanted to be a 'hard' news writer.

We did study some examples of feature stories written 'undercover', and they probably couldn't have been written 'not undercover'. But then - personally - I would question whether they needed to be written. But then, I can be a bit boring that way, and I think that's why I've never managed to change the world. I haven't pushed the boundaries enough.

Now, where on earth did all of that come from? That was nothing like what I expected to write when I began this comment.

[ThirdCat]

Also, why am I not surprised you keep calling their gopher a gerbil?

[Pavlov's Cat]

"It's almost totally contra to what a CW identity from the Australian southern Gothic capital said to one of my students when she asked him what he thought about CNF: 'it's just adding a bit of flavour; a bit of a fad.'"

Oh dear, really?

That's quite useful to know.

[Francis Xavier Holden]

OMG! GT - Did you get his autograph. Or is that uncool?

Frank Sinatra has a cold. one of my favs.
Here it is: http://www.esquire.com/fiction/ESQ1003-OCT_SINATRA_rev_

James Lee Burke often mentions that persistence and a thick skin are writer’s tools.

At age 34 Burke already had 3 novels published. He then went 9 years before his next was accepted. His then work, The Lost Get Back Boogie, received more than 100 rejections, which he reckons is an industry record,"

[elsewhere]

PC -- he may have just been giving a quick and easy answer to students. He might define it differently when speaking to practitioners on the field (why not try it on him)? But y'know, non-fiction does sell well these days. Good reason to take it seriosuly.

FXH -- there probably would have been the opportunity to get his autograph...I'm always a bit iffy about the value of autobiographs (just something on a bit of paper after all).

[ThirdCat]

Actually, I didn't mean to be so black and white about that up there. I suppose I was thinking more straight journalism and meant more about if you are interviewing or psuedo-interviewing them...and we did look at Truman Capote as a particularly interesting example. Actually, I have, on the back of this post, gone and unwrapped the box where I've got all my reading on notes and essays on this topic...it is very fascinating to me. As you can tell.

Also, I've always been fascinated by that stuff about recounting dialogue.

I'll be off now, because clearly I'm still as muddled up as I was when I studied it!

[Jennifer]

I've had fantasies about doing this kind of writing, but the more I blog, the more I realise how much I have to learn about it. Fascinating to read about, and I hope you're enjoying it immensely.

[Kate]

I though the CNF argument had been won (or lost) a while back? Why the resistance to it I wonder? As someone who writes primarily in a factual mode if I ever get enough gumption to try my hand at more "creative" work this would be what interests me, ie, reportage with a creative bent.

[elsewhere]

Jennifer -- from what I've seen of your blog, you could write some kind of trade book on social policy issues for women without having to get into the nitty gritty issues of CNF.

Kate -- I think there are still a variety positions in relation to CNF in Australia, and certainly within CNF in America.

I've been reading more about DEST online and what it considers research, and it seems that schools of journalism have had the same problem as CW in getting what they do credited as 'research' activities. Which is interesting, as the kind of research that CNF does is of investigative journalistic nature and not standard social science qualitative research. Huis clos. We're staring at the blank face of empiricism.

[TPS]

Hi E - been out of the loop...

Fascinating hearing about these issues of CNF - but I betray my ignorance with the following question. Tell me more about the 'fabricated end of In Cold Blood', and why dont I know about this?

Are people not pleased with him because of lack of disclosure in general, or more so because of this 'fabrication' bit? And anyway, what is the extent of his duty to stick to the truth as he uncovered it?

[elsewhere]

Gosh, you sound like a lawyer. Perhaps we should discuss all this over drinks some time.

TC fabricated the end of _In Cold Blood_ in the way Hollywood producers might provide an alternative ending after screentesting for viewers. He made up an episode in which one of his interviewees, the teenage best friend of the murdered Cutter girl, passes the Cutters' house on pony, and feels older, sadder, wiser, tho 'life moves on', etc etc. Or maybe it was their graves. It's fairly innocuous ending, anyway, but those from the hard journalism fold don't like it, as it suggests a laissez-faire attitude to reporting facts: i.e. if he was prepared to make this up, what else did/would he do, etc? Although our realities are necessarily partial, etc, it doesn't mean you have the license to make things up in a non-fiction setting.

[TPS]

Interesting - and glad to hear the 'fabrication' bit was not more substantial (which I momentarily feared).

A topic for drinks indeed!! I hate sounding like a lawyer - but sometimes that stuff just slips out!