I recently read Articles of War by Nick Arvin. Never has a war story so moved me. Not even The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer. The reason Arvin's book impresses me more than Mailer's is because it's more personal. Rather than following the course of the war through the eyes of several characters, it follows one American soldier, detailing his reaction to the horror, the stupidity, and the boredom. Such a counter-position brings the action much closer to home, making it much more personal and effective. One of my favorite movies is an Australian picture called Gallipoli, directed by Peter Weir, about the Allies' attempted invasion of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
But actually, this post isn't about war or war novels or war movies. What I want to comment on right now is how historical figures are used in fiction. Several books of fiction are based on the lives of real people. I, Claudius by Robert Graves is a magnificent portrayal of Imperial Rome. Little Big Man by Thomas Berger is a hilarious account of the expansion of the American West, and the effect of European civilization on Native Americans, in which historical and fictional people interact with aplomb. Several key sections of Birds Without Wings by Louis de Bernieres detail the rise to power of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a very real person who led the fight for the foundation of the modern state of Turkey.
I am very fond of Little Big Man and Birds Without Wings, but Articles of War surpasses them both in the wealth of detail about the actual feel of combat. Or at least what I surmise actual combat feels like, having never actually been in combat myself. The portrayal of the main character proceeds without flaw. The meaninglessness of battles and bombings and killings is presented with a calmness that makes turning each page imperative. For most of the book, that is. The point where I felt jolted out of the the fictive dream was the introduction of Private Eddie Slovik who was executed for desertion on 31 January 1945. One of the questions raised by the narrative is how Slovik could have been fearful of combat when he faced execution so fearlessly.
For some reason, though, the introduction of Slovik totally derails the storyline for me. It seems like a huge, red flag. It's as if Heck, the main character, violates the fourth wall of the reading experience (to appropriate a metaphor from stage), and addresses me directly. Sometimes this works as a device. All first-person fiction is based on the premise that someone is telling the reader what happened. However, this cannot work in a piece of serious third-person fiction. If it does happen, the fiction is no longer third-person by definition.
So my point is that the use of a character from history instead of imagination can sometimes backfire. In this case, a most excellent book unravels at the end, with tatters of the story-telling thread left flapping in the breeze. The book itself I will trumpet forever as one of the best war/anti-war novels of all time. It's just too bad about that darn ending.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
History comes back to bite the hand that feeds it ... kind of ...
If History repeats itself, is there such a word as 'prepeats'?
A few nights ago I stayed up way too late, finishing Birds Without Wings, a novel by Louis de Bernieres about World War I, the end of the Ottoman Empire, and the establishment of the modern state of Turkey.
The next day I came across this article on the Internet:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7050439.ece
about the Turkish atrocities committed during WWI.
"Birds" tells the story of a small village in the boondocks of the Ottoman Empire before, during, and after World War I. Mr. de Bernieres takes over 400 pages to detail the lives of many of the villagers. The first part of the novel shows what life is like in the idyllic setting where Christians and Moslems live so closely together that they often wander into each other's worship services, and regularly ask each other to pray for them. Intermarriage is no big deal. The basic point is that even though there are two faiths, the people are all of one nation.
When the Ottoman Empire dissolves, breaks apart, and goes down in flames, the outside world begins forcing its own viewpoint on the hapless citizens, which means Christians in this corner, Moslems in that one. Friends turn against friends, then regret it. In the end, love not only doesn't conquer all, but it leads with its glass chin.
An interesting quote from the news article is one of the Turkish leaders saying that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire, and so has nothing to apologize for. However, even if the national identities are not equivalent, what about the individuals who carried over from one regime to the next? If Germany and Japan both felt the need to own up to the atrocities committed in the name of nationalism during World War II, why doesn't Turkey? Then again, how culpable is Attaturk, the leader of the new country? Did his fight against the former rulers absolve him of any shortcomings? Did the independence for which he fought assuage all guilt? Are all losers guilty? Are all winners right? And anyway, whose point of view is so pristine as to set the standard?
A few nights ago I stayed up way too late, finishing Birds Without Wings, a novel by Louis de Bernieres about World War I, the end of the Ottoman Empire, and the establishment of the modern state of Turkey.
The next day I came across this article on the Internet:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7050439.ece
about the Turkish atrocities committed during WWI.
"Birds" tells the story of a small village in the boondocks of the Ottoman Empire before, during, and after World War I. Mr. de Bernieres takes over 400 pages to detail the lives of many of the villagers. The first part of the novel shows what life is like in the idyllic setting where Christians and Moslems live so closely together that they often wander into each other's worship services, and regularly ask each other to pray for them. Intermarriage is no big deal. The basic point is that even though there are two faiths, the people are all of one nation.
When the Ottoman Empire dissolves, breaks apart, and goes down in flames, the outside world begins forcing its own viewpoint on the hapless citizens, which means Christians in this corner, Moslems in that one. Friends turn against friends, then regret it. In the end, love not only doesn't conquer all, but it leads with its glass chin.
An interesting quote from the news article is one of the Turkish leaders saying that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire, and so has nothing to apologize for. However, even if the national identities are not equivalent, what about the individuals who carried over from one regime to the next? If Germany and Japan both felt the need to own up to the atrocities committed in the name of nationalism during World War II, why doesn't Turkey? Then again, how culpable is Attaturk, the leader of the new country? Did his fight against the former rulers absolve him of any shortcomings? Did the independence for which he fought assuage all guilt? Are all losers guilty? Are all winners right? And anyway, whose point of view is so pristine as to set the standard?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Someone in ancient Greece probably had the same thought
It just occurred to me a moment ago:
Just as there is only one ocean on the planet,
and just as there is only one language throughout history,
there is only one book that has ever been written.
Just as there is only one ocean on the planet,
and just as there is only one language throughout history,
there is only one book that has ever been written.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Ten (or so) Rules For Writing Fiction
While browsing the headlines on Google News earlier tonight, I happened upon an article called "Ten Rules For Writing Fiction". (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/20/ten-rules-for-writing-fiction-part-one) My curiosity provoked, I clicked. Turns out it wasn't just one list, but several, compiled by recognizable fiction writers. Here, in no particular order (and numbering far more than ten), are some that impressed me most:
Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said."
Never use the word "suddenly."
Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
Don't go into detail describing places and things.
Hold the reader's attention. But you don't know who the reader is, so it's like shooting fish with a slingshot in the dark.
You most likely need a thesaurus.
There are cliches of response as well as expression.
Only bad writers think that their work is really good.
The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.
Write in the third-person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly.
Interesting verbs are seldom very interesting.
Cut out the metaphors and similes.
Trust your reader. Not everything needs to be explained.
Write a book you'd like to read.
If description is colored by the viewpoint of the character who is doing the noticing, it becomes, in effect, part of the character definition and part of the action.
Tell the story as if talking to your best friend.
You can either write good sentences or you can't.
The better and more compelling a novel is, the less conscious you will be of its devices.
Novels are for readers.
Be ambitious for the work, not the reward.
Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said."
Never use the word "suddenly."
Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
Don't go into detail describing places and things.
Hold the reader's attention. But you don't know who the reader is, so it's like shooting fish with a slingshot in the dark.
You most likely need a thesaurus.
There are cliches of response as well as expression.
Only bad writers think that their work is really good.
The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.
Write in the third-person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly.
Interesting verbs are seldom very interesting.
Cut out the metaphors and similes.
Trust your reader. Not everything needs to be explained.
Write a book you'd like to read.
If description is colored by the viewpoint of the character who is doing the noticing, it becomes, in effect, part of the character definition and part of the action.
Tell the story as if talking to your best friend.
You can either write good sentences or you can't.
The better and more compelling a novel is, the less conscious you will be of its devices.
Novels are for readers.
Be ambitious for the work, not the reward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
