I came across this review the other day by the woman (could be a man, I suppose, but I don’t think so) who got #1 of the limited edition 450 copies of ANWAGTHAP. I wasn’t sure what to make of it:
review of And Now We Are Going to Have a Party, by pretentiousgit
This book is actually five books put together to form chapters in the author’s life. Reading it is like reading any of Griffith’s stuff, but with the skin stripped off so that you can see the muscles of the story moving. One of the things coming rapidly clear in this project is the amount of autobiography out there, the number of Mary Sue characters in my collection, some good, some bad, most simply there to tell a story. Writing what you know is the cornerstone of the fiction in my collection, and that means the more I get to know the authors, the more I see of them in the works I am reading. This is as true for The Sandman as it is for The Passion, so I think it may be a Writer Thing…
So, after you’ve read the whole thing, what I want to know is: do you think writers write the same story over and over again in their fiction? Before you answer, let me make it clear, this is what, in our house, we call a real question. It’s not one designed to elicit reassurance. I’m not fishing for compliments, either. I honestly want to know what you see when you read a favourite (any favourite) writer’s work.
I think I do revisit some themes over and over, particularly the notion of identity. Ammonite, Slow River, the Aud sequence (series, trilogy, triptych, whatever): they’re all about how we become who we are and what that means. And of course that’s the overriding question of my life: who am I, and what does that mean?
I believe novelists do reveal themselves, to a degree, in their work. I don’t believe our work is necessarily about us. But I’m curious about readers’ thoughts on this.
Nicola Griffith 
I think avoiding some degree of Mary Sue can be difficult for even the most dilligent authors. At the end of the day, we do idealize our characters, and we spend a lot of time with them. So they must be someone we like and trust, and who can we trust more than ourselves? I can think of a couple of great authors (nameless) who repeat themes and character and voice consistently within wildly different worlds and plotlines. A reader might start to consider that they’re writing Mary Sues, but to me this indicates a deep exploration of character: <>will they stand up under various horrible circumstances?<> Maybe these authors seek to answer even a deeper question: <>Could I? <> No problem. As a reader, if the characters succeed, I succeed alongside them.
That depends too if the writer is writing to formula in a formulaic genre. I would certainly expect that familiarity then because that is what those genres are about, and their readers practically demand it.Do you wonder why you chose spec-fic to explore identity themes? Okay, Aud is contemporary noir but she’s like superhumanly wired.“who am I, and what does that mean?”When you find out, if you find a satisfactory answer, what’s next? I ask because when I considered the first question many years ago, it quickly became “what can I do with who I am.” It could be that I am defining myself through my actions, and not so importantly what it means to do so because I have an aim for an action. Rather short-sighted sometimes, but hopefully it means I move closer to being in the present, with the final objective to not be present at all.Do I think novelists reveal themselves in their work? Absolutely. And with writers who interact with readers a lot – such as yourself – it gets harder to separate the work from the writer.
I do think that many writers revisit the same <>themes<> in their work, but that’s not the same as writing Mary Sue stories. One of the more straightforward examples of it this is Robin McKinley’s two different novel-length retellings of “Beauty and the Beast” (<>Beauty<> and <>Rose Daughter<>).I think it’s important to understand what a Mary Sue story is, and I don’t think any of your books are Mary Sue stories, because the main characters may have had similar experiences to those you’ve had, but I would guess that they make different decisions. Recently I started to worry if my book was turning out to be a Mary Sue story but really, I don’t think so. Like most writing, it’s autobiographical and it’s not.I also think it’s a mistake to dismiss fiction as a “diluted version” of real life. I actually think fiction often takes real life and sharpens it, focuses the lens, magnifying it to a degree that would probably be destructive in real life. Especially with “speculative” fiction — or with the Aud books.
Depends on the author. Good ones, no, they do not tell the same story over and over.Do I think you do? Absolutely not. Anyone who wants to see an example of that should try reading some Patricia Cornwell (if you can take it) – you’ll get the same story over and over and over and over.Do I think books reveal who the author really is? Yes, in some ways, but I agree that doesn’t mean they are ‘about’ the author. I believe that good writing comes from the heart, the core of the person. I think that some things one can’t know about merely by imagining, I think there has to be some kernel of experience in there to really *know* how something really feels down deep. I don’t care how good an observer you are. For instance with the grief Aud goes through in Stay. I’ve said before that I read your books in the order you wrote them. After I finished Stay, I was blown away. I thought who the heck is this person, and I went online to find out more about you. Having gone through the grief process myself multiple times, I did not believe that anyone could have written that who had not had some experience with it as well. And I saw you that you had, but not exactly the same circumstances. You took what you knew and extrapolated that into a whole other thing. And you got it right. Very few people would/could.People can’t really know who you are from your books; they can imagine that they do, but they don’t know. It’s true that your openness online, in various interviews, and now with your memoir, helps us put some pieces together. But without those clues, we couldn’t possibly know. And even those clues only take us so far. And with authors who are not as accessible, we can imagine we know who they are from their books, but again, we can’t really know. There are no facts that relate us to the story; any one of a hundred aspects could be like the author, but how would we know which aspects unless we know the person or they tell us? I think you have been generous in telling us some things about you, but even so, you only go so far.And I don’t think you re-tell the same stories. Yes, you have some common themes; identity and love and sensuality. Life. Things that matter to us and make us who we are. Concepts worth reading about. Maybe we can learn something about ourselves from reading books, maybe we’ll understand a little something more about life and the people in it, and in that way, maybe we’ll understand you a little better as well.You certainly are not Aud or Lore or Spanner, or any of your characters, although I am sure there are pieces of you that are like pieces of them. Like many of us.One of the things I really like about you is your ability to really feel things; my impression is that you feel something and you really kind of revel in it. Then you move on. Most people don’t, I think; I think a lot of people are so practiced at denying their emotions that they are put off when other people don’t. Especially with the more negative type of feelings – like anger. Sometimes you say things on here about wanting to kick in the refrigerator or hit someone or something. When I first heard that stuff, I thought whoa. Now I realize that you are just doing some very healthy venting. People often make assumptions about other people based on their own experience, etc. I think your stories are multi-layered; there is something there for all levels of readers to explore. We each bring ourselves into our reading; some people maybe do it to the exclusion of the actual words on paper. Surprisingly, some people do not ask themselves that question; who am I and what does that mean?
I’m not sure if it’s so much that authors write the same story over and over again, or if it’s a need for the reader to see in the story, the same story, with different angles. It seems we have a need for connection, it’s why reality shows consistently get the large ratings. Like SSS said, about succeeding along with the characters. I’m sure in some way, but in many different ways, we all connect with Aud (and Jackal) but we’ve read the pain and success based on our own perception of pain or success. And what could be better then the validation of connecting with a character, but to feel the character must be close to the author, therefore the author wrote her/his story, and I’m now connecting and receiving validation from not just a character, but a person. I can imagine how many people wonder if Andrew Vachss is a mercenary in real life, because they want to believe there really is a non fictional person fighting for children, killing for children. We want to believe Aud is real, that someone can kill, to defend, that someone would be so noble to support a child without a pat on the back. See, right there, that’s a story I see, that I connect with, that I want to believe is real. Nicola, you could write a short story about a car, and someone would relate, and wonder if the way you describe the upholstery, is how you feel a woman under your fingertips, because, that’s how they think a woman would feel, or does feel under their fingertips. So, my answer is, I don’t think a writer writes the same story over and over again, I think the reader reads the same story over and over again.
Do writers write the same story over and over? I agree with Jennifer: it depends on who the writer is. But I’d also add that it depends even more on who their readers are and how fixed or flexible are those readers’ demands. An audience can be a brutal prison.Do I read Authors into their Work? I try not to. I will go as far as custom-wrapping book covers so I can avoid looking at authors’ pictures before I’ve read at least three of their titles. I know too well that I have a tendency to find connections where there aren’t, and I’d be tempted to misplace authors into their creations, I’d be tempted to misread.I have < HREF="http://shetranslates.com/2008/authors-to-be-characters/" REL="nofollow">a longer answer<>, too.
My last statement didn’t come out right, but I can’t put to words what I’m thinking…ahh… I don’t think no authors write the same story, or that all authors don’t… but I can’t help but to think that many readers need to feel connection to something or someone real. I’m trying to be honest, as a reader, when it comes to children/teens, I can almost make something up that might not be there, just to have a sense of a child/teen being saved. And in that, I can see the same story over and over.I’ll stop, because I’m not sure this is making sense. Well, I’ll add that I have thought of doing a fan fic of Aud somehow getting the task of teaching a youth martial arts/self-defense program. There’s that need, to see that story. To make Aud real, to save me. Wouldn’t this be the case in addiction, love, loss, etc? I don’t know…
I think that every reader reads a different book — because as readers we all bring our own filters to the work. Our individual experiences, our values, our hopes and fears, our secrets, our dreams, our family and culture — all of those combine into a lens through which we experience art. We read the same book as the guy across the aisle on the bus, and come away with an entirely different reaction.So for me, when a reader talks about “what the writer is doing,” it seems only fair to also think about what he or she is bringing to the party.But writers (any artist) certainly can become reductive. Here’s < HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/7" REL="nofollow">a take on that<> for folks who are interested.
<>Kelley,<> I agree that every reader reads a different book. It’s also another one of the reasons why I try not to look at authors pictures before I read enough of their work. If there’s anyone I want to see reflected in the characters, it’s me. I like to entertain the self-centered illusion that stories are all about me: what I know, what I ignore, what I feel, what I love, what I fear, what I’m being pushed into experiencing while I’m inside them.
Nicola, I think you avoid Mary Sue characters by doing so much research. Learning changes who you are. And such an amount of new understanding prevents you from simply projecting yourself into some fantasy scenario.
Oh man, where to start. So I’ll start at an assumption that has gotten me in trouble with authors of one sort or another. That is, the concept of being able to not have some of you in the writing. I think that is virtually impossible. All of a person’s thoughts come from their mind. Taking in information is what we do. Processing it is what we do. And some of us can take our experiences and turn it into art. I don’t think the meaning is necessarily as important as the way the meaning is expressed. Isn’t there something about plots that says there are only 10 major themes and Shakespeare (spelling?) identified what they are. I may not be remembering this that well because of the fogginess of my mond at times.But it seems to me that there are limitations in the essence of plots. But look at how many books have been written using these same plot concepts!! Girl meets girl.. how could someone have an issue with this. Look at how many times and by how many authors this story has been told. And it still imteresting!. (How does one express a SHOUT on line?)I think my emotions are up because of other factors in my life right now, so may be expressing myself too strongly for the situation. But this review just doesn’t make sense to me. Also, who cares if an author is pulling directly from life experiences to add to the building of the character or to add to the substance of their work. I’m not a writer, so please tell me if any of this is making sense. And as I am starting to get into htoughts of “how can this person be such an idiot?, I’m going to sign off to avoid any unpleasantness.Except, what is a “Mary Sue character?”duff
If I don’t misremember, it was T. S. Eliot who said that only in literature are we able to view the world as another person perceives it, since when writing it is impossible not to make the choices natural to us. All of us have been formed by genes, experience and reflection, and part of what we are is what we find important or unimportant in life. To some of us, sounds are more important than sights, to some smell is more important than taste. Some of us notice details, others prefer overview; some stress actions, others reactions. And so on. I think I agree with Eliot on this; an author will reveal much of her/his own sense of life, choices, ways of perceiving and reacting to life.But saying that isn’t saying that an author needs to repeatedly write the same story. As someone (Malinda) said, many authors use similar themes in different works, but similar themes is a different thing than similar plots or similar stories. And fiction is written on many levels. A good craftsman writing in genre can surprise by entertaining you repeatedly even using the same theme, plot and basic story any number of times (or perhaps you don’t happen to like Rex Stout); an artist can vary plots and stories but use the identical theme with different stresses in order to examine it as thoroughly as possible (how about Joyce Carol Oates? or Marguerite Duras?). It the voice is also the same, you will recognise the author. But s/he may still surprise you, again and again.
I don’t know whether this is comparing apples to oranges, but my partner is a writer, as well as a sermon writer.I’ve spoken with her and with other ministers (all Unitarian Universalist in this case) about the themes in their sermons.The overwhelming consensus is that ministers tend to write One Sermon over and over again…the theme they’re most passionate about tends to come out somehow in every sermon they write.It’s quite interesting, because as it’s been pointed out here, every reader reads a different book. The “audience” of these sermons rarely hears 1) the same sermon, or 2) the sermon the minister was trying to get across.
I agree that everyone reads their own book, brings their own stuff to the party.And in the same way I think that every author puts more or less of themselves into their writing. I want what I read to have heart (among other things).Duff, I had to look up the Mary Sue thing even though I’ve heard it mentioned here before, < HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue" REL="nofollow">try this<>.
Jennifer D thanks for that info. I agree with what most of you say. And you all say it well! If I too was a writer I’d be envious, but since I’m not its admiration.One last thought from me on this is that I think I want that #1 edition of …PARTY. I think I would appreciate it more than its current curator.Duff
Well, my two days off has led to a pile of comments–too many to respond to individually, without cutting into Hild time, so I think what I’ll do is write a follow-up post on this subject. But these comments are very interesting: notions of genre, and self, theme vs. story, truth and reality, revelation and hiding, same writer or same reader? Sermons and stories, fan fic and need… This is excellent stuff. Thank you all.And for the next few days I vow to be On Top of Things. Mostly :)
Yes and no. The very core of the writer always comes through the work, even though style, characters, genre change, shift or differ. Nicola has a certain sound/pitch in her work, in her voice, in her way of seeing/being in the world so distinct, even if she were to write under another name this sound would betray her.
<>Nicola has a certain sound/pitch in her work, in her voice, in her way of seeing/being in the world so distinct, even if she were to write under another name this sound would betray her.<>Damn.
Does that comment bother you? Why? Just because someone might recognize your voice, that doesn’t mean they know anything about you or that your writing doesn’t reflect more than your personal life.That reminds me of what people (critics, teachers) are always saying about photographers; that they should have a discernable vision – not that every photo has the same subject matter, or style, or look exactly, (or genre) but that there is a certain kind of perception – an eye – that carries through the work.And I’ve also been thinking about all of this a little more. Most of the time I don’t even ask myself if the book reflects the author’s personal life. I really don’t care most of the time. It is very rare that a book touches me in a way that I do care.
jennifer, no, jan’s comment is a compliment, at least I take it as such. It’s just that sometimes I harbour these dreams of anonymity, of publishing guerilla books, or, huh, maybe dreams of guerilla-publishing books, but if people will know who did it then it sorta spoils the whole idea.
Yes, I thought it was too, but I took your comment wrong.Suspecting one knows who did something is not the same as really knowing is it? It might even be more of a lure.
Ah, the old tantalise with uncertainty thing? Ha. Could be fun.
Yep, definitely – could be lots of fun. On both sides.