Aline Soules

Poet and Fiction Writer

Aline Soules

Writing from the Self

Image credit: http://www.newarkthinktank.org/wrs_poetry

Recently, Justin Cox reminded readers of this quote:

Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.

Cyril Connolly, 1933, as quoted in the patron-only January newsletter of Patreon, https://www.patreon.com/home

As timely today as it was in 1933, this statement reminds me that I’m a writer. Yes, I’m an author, too, but, even if I hadn’t published anything, I’d still be a writer. I choose to write on a computer, but if we were back in cave life, I’d etch on the walls with a rock. It’s who I am.

I’ve always written, even as a child. When I was born in Scotland, only some Christians celebrated Christmas. For families who did celebrate, one neighborhood “rule” was that we children had to sit down and write thank you letters for our presents on Boxing Day (Dec. 26). Most of my friends were dragged to this. I thought it was fun. I was a writer, finding different ways to say thank you. My thanks were more enthusiastic the more I liked a particular present. My most eager thanks were for gifts of books.

I never thought about becoming an author when I was in “single digits.” But I knew I was a writer. And I always will be, as long as I can pick up a pen or clack on a computer.

As I enter another year of writing, the quote also reminds me why I’ve come to writing historical fiction. We can call this quote timeless because we have the distance that enables us to realize its continued validity today.

The lessons of history, in whatever form they take, are hard come by. History is what has been written down, both in primary and secondary sources. That, inherently, means bias. What we choose to write also implies what we haven’t written down, what’s lost. As I read extensively in researching my novel, I’ve become more and more aware of the fragility of knowing what really happened. My novel is set in Europe in WWII and much has been written, but always from a perspective and often from a set of constraints on the writer. Or is the writer an “author” in this case? Sometimes no, if the writer never intended for the words to be read, but sometimes yes, if the writer was aiming at sharing those words with others, from a small group of family members to formal publication.

When I read these many works, I seek what really happened, if it’s possible to know that, and I seek the writer’s “self.” It’s very important to me to find the “authenticity” in the work, to know that the writer truly believes the words he/she/they have put on the page. I want a writer who conveys passion and conviction on the page, someone who gives me deep-seated belief in the subject matter, even though I am that writer’s “public,” planned or otherwise. I need the one who writes for the public, but only one who has found and written from “self.” And I strive to be that writer myself.

The Gift of the Public Domain

Image credit: https://pixabay.com/en/copyright-free-creative-commons-98566/

Reading a Facebook post by Jane Friedman, she reminded readers that important works will come into the public domain on Jan. 1, 2019. Of course, there are also movies, music, and works of art coming as well. Of particular importance, as The Atlantic pointed out, is the fact that a whole year’s worth of copyrighted works are affected. In 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Act extended the term of copyright, meaning that we spent about twenty additional years “waiting” for key works to be available publicly, without copyright control. Works first published in 1923 will be opened for us to create new works or simply read them without the addition of a copyright fee. Lifehacker (https://lifehacker.com/these-1923-copyrighted-works-enter-the-public-domain-in-1825241296), also noting this seismic event, has provided a long list of works (scroll down for their list of chosen books).

The one that haunts me is the short story, Mrs. Dalloway in Bond Street. This, plus an unfinished short story called “The Prime Minister,” were the basis of her novel, Mrs. Dalloway, published in 1925 (meaning we need to wait two more years to get our public domain hands on it). I love this work for its interiority. The reason I like books with interiority is, for me, full interiority is unique to books. Setting, character, and plot can be found in books, movies, and TV, but interiority is elusive. What’s going on inside a character’s head can be interpreted and partly conveyed by actors, but full interiority, conveyed by the author directly to a reader, can only be fully available in books. Mrs. Dalloway isn’t the only “interior” book in the world, but it’s the one that gave me an “aha” moment when I began writing myself.

As the Lifehacker article points out, not quite everything published in 1923 will come into the public domain, only works with an authorized publication in 1923, so you have to check, but we are finally beginning to see a true expansion of the public domain and that’s the ultimate gift for the new year.

I suggest that you find a book on the list and indulge yourself in the new year by reading it, knowing that it will be there for you, your children, and your children’s children. Maybe one of the books on that list will prompt an “aha” moment, as I experienced. That’s what the gift of reading and the public domain has to offer us.


Historical Fiction and Language

As I write my historical novel, I become more aware of the challenge of selecting the right words for the time period in which my novel is set, namely WWII.  Recently, in a critique group, a member flagged the word “partner,” which I’d used to describe the man who is in a relationship with my female protagonist.  Of course, she was absolutely right.  “Partner” is too modern a word and takes the reader out of the time period.  “Relationship” wouldn’t be right, either, but, fortunately, I didn’t use that.

In recent years, as I’ve read various historical novels, I’ve noticed this problem more frequently, even as I make the same mistake myself.  I read a novel set in 16th century Scotland and, in response to a “thank you,” one character said “no problem.”  Problem.

Language has always evolved and changed (hence the term, “living” language), but I’ve had the sense that it’s shifting more quickly now.  Regardless, it’s important to keep the fictive dream alive by using the right language for the historical period of my novel.

How do I try to do this?  

  1. By reading novels that were written around that time, to try to implant in my own mind the way sentences were crafted and words were used,  
  2. By relying on my critique group to point out words, phrases, sentences, that don’t ring true, and
  3. By seeking beta readers (when the time is right) to get their help, too.

Do any of you have other ideas to address this challenge?

Image Credit: https://www.123rf.com/photo_17197026_abstract-word-cloud-for-fiction-writing-with-related-tags-and-terms.html 

More Mergers, Fewer Traditional Options

I refer readers to https://bit.ly/2BYHXoh, “Centrello Details Crown Reorg,” the latest in traditional publisher mergers, this one a merger of Random House and Crown Publishing.  According to the article, “the structure, editorial direction, and imprint teams of the Random House publishing programs are unchanged,” but I wonder for how long.  

This is the business of publishing, and, fortunately, new models are springing up.  Self-publishing has been around for a while now, but it’s a tough slog for an author.  The cost is the author’s and the marketing is exhausting, time-consuming and, often, not particularly successful.  Hybrid publishing generally “shares” expenses and, sometimes, marketing between author and publisher.

While at the Kauai Writers Conference recently, I wondered about why traditional publishers continue with impractical practices.  Blockbuster authors earn out their advances, but agents only want blockbuster authors (or books) because their cut of the “advance” enables them to make a living.  For an author, a big advance might be the thrill of a lifetime, but if that author doesn’t earn it out, publishers are unlikely to consider the author’s next book.  New models of publishing offer some sort of solution to this, if the author can afford to go that way.

As a former librarian, I have some sense of the struggles publishers face.  Production costs have risen, marketing costs are impossible (major houses do less or no marketing for non-blockbusters), and profits are marginal if the book isn’t a blockbuster.  There’s a risk in taking on a new author.  As for sales, I definitely know that publishers don’t sell as many books to libraries, because library budgets have shrunk for decades.  As for general sales, I read periodically that more people read books than ever, but the latest Publisher’s Weekly article says that adult book sales were flat in October and sales of children’s books were down 6.8% (https://bit.ly/2BYt9G3). And with the new publishing models, more books than ever are available.  I’m sure everyone is hoping for bumper sales for the end-of-year holiday season.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I suspect we’re in for a bumpy ride.

Non-binary Gender Pronouns

Lately, I’ve been considering non-binary gender pronouns and how they might infuse my writing.  First, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34901704 (which includes the image) takes you to an article about non-binary gender pronouns.  Also, there’s a quick tip list created in collaboration with Melinda Lee, Assistant Director, Gender and Sexuality Center for Queer and Trans Life, at the University of Minnesota, at  http://writing.umn.edu/sws/quickhelp/grammar/nonbinary.html

Right now, I’m working on a historical novel, so don’t “need” non-binary gender pronouns at the moment, but this gives me time to consider them for future writing projects.  First, they are an indication of our growing awareness and, hopefully, understanding of all people.  Second, they are becoming more common in our evolving language.  

As someone who has used the English language for a long time, I find words like ze and ey unexpected, but I’m able to adjust to them more readily than the new way we use more common words like they/them/theirs.  Referring to a single person as “they are…” is hard for me.  Even harder is “they is…” which I have also read.  While I recall that “they” used to be a single pronoun centuries ago (coming from thee, thy, etc.), it has been plural in my lifetime.

I also have difficulty with sentences such as these:  “That research is theirs” (when referring to a single person) or, even harder, “They cited themself” (rather than themselves).  I suspect that we may still be in a period of flux as our usages “settle” into a more common form, but, even then, it’s difficult for me to “change my spots,” even as I am fully aware that our living language is living precisely because it adapts and changes.  

The English language is one of the most adaptable languages in the world.  I recall reading somewhere that, in the first fifty years that Britain occupied India (we’ll ignore the horrible behavior for the purposes of discussing language), the British adopted/adapted/absorbed thousands of words into English from Hindi, Urdu, and so on.  Words we take for granted, like “loot, nirvana, pyjamas, shampoo and shawl; bungalow, jungle, pundit and thug.” This list is taken from Rahul Verma’s “How India Changed the English Language” (BBC Culture article dated 22 June 2015 (see http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150619-how-india-changed-english), which explains the spelling of pyjamas (pajamas in American language).

So what’s my problem with ey/em/eirs or co/co/co’s?  Upbringing, familiarity, habituation.  What “sounds right” in my ear.  So I struggle on and do my best and hope my non-binary friends and acquaintances will give me some understanding as I work to adjust.