Progress in "The Novel in Progress"

Our first meeting, 5 January, 1997:

I am a little dubious about the class as a class: it doesn't seem to me that there is enough time for any of us to get a real feel for what's going on in someone else's novel, nor give the others a feel for what is going on in ours. But I am hopeful that the class will work out in another sense: I will finally get to meet some local novelists to share ideas with, and with luck the class will teach us how to read each other's work and comment constructively on it outside the class sessions.

Our second meeting, 12 January, 1997:

Our third meeting, 19 January, 1997:

Comments that I felt were useful typically addressed the tone of the piece, the characterization of the narrator, and people's expectations of what the book would be like given the fact that elements such as imagoes and zombies were mentioned. There is a strong shift in tone between the prologue and the first chapter, and I was concerned that it would put off the reader. Several class members commented on that change in various ways, and I'll have to weigh their comments carefully before I decide what changes are necessary. Most everyone felt that the narrator was successfully characterized as the sort of person I wanted to characterize him as, although not everyone liked the idea of such a character as narrator. Since having just this sort of narrator is a large part of what the book is about, I'm glad he comes across clearly. The imagoes and zombie problems were more troublesome. Most folks didn't know what an imago was (in this case, it refers to a spectral apparition representing a living person who is also present), did know what a zombie was, and were unclear as to what sort of book I was writing that included them. At least one person felt that I was presenting a sort of alternative reality in which everyone was amoral and anything was possible. For myself, I don't know if what I am writing is a new kind of book or not (I'm not egotistical enough to assume that it is) but it is intended to be a book whose narrator has embraced a philosophy that what goes on inside one's mind is exactly as real as what goes on outside it and is trying to tell his story in those terms.

Comments that I felt were useless were mainly the default opening sentences about what a good writer I was, how smoothly my prose flowed, and so on. This is mostly because they seem to be default opening sentences. My opinion of this may change if we hear a really bad reading and folks manage not to tell the writer that it's good. (For what it's worth, the four readings I've heard so far were all very competently written, and to judge whether they consistently rose above competency I think I'd have to read more of the book.)

In the second half of the class another writer read from the middle of his book. He has been in previous offerings of this course with several of the class members, and they had heard the beginning of the book then, so it was interesting to see the difference between their understandings of what was going on and whether it was good and my understanding of it. I had some difficulty keeping the characters straight, but they didn't. I was impressed with the writer's portrayal of a particular scene--an alcoholic is driving inattentively, rear-ends another driver, and in the middle of talking to the responding police officer he suddenly begins to cry uncontrollably. He managed to lead us through the scene with a sort of steady inevitability that reflected the alcoholic's lack of control and at the same time stayed well away from bathos.

Our fourth meeting, 26 January, 1997:

We should have made him read it--I want to hear what it sounds like when Kermit reads science fiction. But seriously, I think someone should have read this aloud, if not the writer himself, and said so at the opening of this session. As it turns out, several folks agreed with me. I volunteered to read for anyone who didn't want to read their own stuff. Apparently, Joyce (the instructor) has done this for folks in the past.

Skipping a reading did enable us to cover this novel and two readings (one cut rather short, unfortunately) in a single two-hour session. The science fiction novel made an important point, to my mind at least: it is crucial to establish the perspective of the novel right away. As it turns out, this novel is intended to be a sort of science fiction parody, or if not a parody, at least a romp in the same sort of vein as Douglas Adams's books. However, I had read it completely "straight" on my own and thought that it was too old-fashioned and space-operatic to be a good start on an SF novel. Since it isn't intended to be taken straight, it can probably be fixed pretty easily just by tweaking the opening enough to make the parodic perspective clearer.

Our second reader read from a fascinating book set in a North Carolina mountain inn, and the third reader from a sort of time-travel saga the involves modern-day England and India of the era of the Aryan invasion. Some of the passages in this book were beautifully poetic, and I was left wondering if any random collection of writers gathered off the streets of the Research Triangle would yield as many good writers as we have in our class, or did some strange coincidence draw this group together? In any case, it's exciting to be participating with this group, and inspiring me to write with a regularity I haven't managed in years.

Our fifth meeting, 02 February, 1997:

These folks didn't hand out copies for us to follow along as they read, and that makes it hard to make specific comments sometimes. On the other hand, there's seems to be something to be said for just closing one's eyes and listening--I think you pick up a different kind of problem this way than you do reading the printed word as it is read. I haven't made up my mind which kind of comment is the best kind to try to elicit in this class--I suspect I'd rather have the read-along-with comments on my own work, but I haven't tried reading to the class without providing copies yet.

Our sixth meeting, 09 February, 1997:

Our seventh meeting, 16 February, 1997:

Joyce had some nice things to say about the style of my writing, particularly the way I have a few long breathless sentences followed by a short declarative one that sort of sums up. I do that deliberately, so it's nice to see that someone picks up on it and likes it.

Our eighth meeting, 23 February, 1997:

We heard another chapter from the North Carolina inn novel, and I impressed yet again by this writer's talent. Her characters are thoroughly convincing. She said that in a previous season of the same class Joyce had encouraged her to create life stories for her characters, even if she didn't use any of the details, as a way of getting to know them better. It certainly seems to have worked for her.

Our ninth (and final) meeting, 1 March, 1997:

Another member read a chapter in the form of diary entries. There was a spirited discussion of whether the chapter worked in that form, which interestingly turned out to be divided along lines of sex--the men, by and large, felt it didn't quite, while the women felt it did. The writer, by the way, is a man.

One member of the class proposed forming a small group to meet, perhaps bi-weekly, in addition to or instead of signing up for the next session. She can't afford the next session. I'm not sure I can take the time off from Saturdays with my family any longer, so I welcomed her suggestion eagerly.

The class was undoubtedly worth the cost of admission, and very helpful both in reading my work critically and just in keeping me going with regular writing sessions at home, but I am hopeful evening meetings with a small group will serve a similar purpose and allow me to see my wife and children during daylight hours.