Looking for Info about AWAY by Amy Bloom...

And now on with my search to understand Amy Bloom’s Away and to see what others think. Maybe I’ll start with the stuff that’s easiest to find about what people make of the book – book reviews. I’ve already cited Publishers Weekly and The New York Times. Let’s take a closer look at those sources and then check out some other sources…

First look for reviews – I Googled “Amy Bloom Away Book Reviews.” First one up with the NPR review by Maureen Corrigan – so I get to listen rather than read. Corrigan starts by telling me two things that I didn’t know and/or think of myself:
1. she compare it to Toni Morrison’s Beloved, from the one word title to the use of a real woman’s story as a basis;
2. that is the 2nd thing, i.e. I didn’t know there was a real-world model for Lillian.

Corrigan calls it a female on-the-road novel, which I would agree with. It is very much about a journey.She then mostly continues on with the Beloved comparison and thinks it pales in comparison, including what she derides as its “multi-culti chorus line of clichéd characters…” I see what she means, but I think I found those characters more charming than did Corrigan...

Ok, onward in the reviews search… Next I find something that looks very handy, something I’ve actually been searching for – a compendium of reviews at http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/ - this site seems to list all the reviews a book received and link to them. There’s The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, newspapers from Seattle, Pittsburgh, Boston, and more, magazines such as Entertainment Weekly… Ok, I’ve got some reading to do…

Away to Amy Bloom!

I just finished reading a new book by the author Amy Bloom, called Away.

First, a little background:

Amy Bloom is the author of two novels, two collections of short stories, and she has been a nominee for both the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award. She has written for the New Yorker, the New York Times Magazine, the Atlantic Monthly, Vogue, and many other publications. She is trained as a psychotherapist, lives in Connecticut and teaches at Yale University.

Amy Bloom first attracted readers’ attention in 1993 with the publication of her story collection Come to Me, a finalist for the National Book Award about which the New York Times says: “Her voice is sure and brisk, her language often beautiful; the result is humorous as well as heartrending fiction.”

Oh, look – and here’s something else I recently learned about Amy Bloom – she recently got married! Mazel tov, Amy!


Bloom’s latest bestseller is Away. Set in the Roaring 1920s, Away is told through the eyes of Lillian Leyb, a courageous and beautiful Jewish woman who embarks on a n odyssey that takes her from the world of the Yiddish theater on New York’s Lower East Side, to Seattle’s Jazz District, and up to Alaska to be reunited with the daughter she believed she lost in Russia. Publishers Weekly says: “Bloom’s tale offers linguistic twists, startling imagery, sharp wit and a compelling vision of the past. Bloom has created an extraordinary range of characters, settings and emotions.”

Anyway, I finished reading the book, and in thinking it over I thought “this book is brilliant.” It wasn’t always an easy read, wasn’t always the kind of book that you can’t put down or can’t wait to get back to, but brilliant nonetheless. It occurred to me that what the author was doing in this book was writing a female Jewish Odyssey. And then I wondered – what do other readers think about this book. I decided to go poking around the online book community to see what I can learn about what others think about Amy Bloom’s Away and to see whom I can meet with whom I can chat about this rich and perplexing book.

So that’s what I’m going to do…

David Wroblewski, continued

LR: Who were some other people who were influential in helping to shape the manuscript?

DW: There's a long list of people who helped along the way, in the form of reading drafts and providing feedback, but at the top, by a mile, is Kimberly McClintock, my partner, significant other, amore -- pick your favorite label for committed unmarrieds. Kimberly read more drafts than anyone, suffered through more revisions than anyone, consoled me more than
anyone, and gave me the hardest news of anyone. When something didn't work, she told me.
She was my first and last reader. If something didn't make her happy, it had to change.

There was also a group I called the Edgar Sawtelle Advisory Committee, my creative board of directors for this book, who'd read one or another of the drafts. I felt free to call them for sanity checks: I'm thinking of changing such-and-such, what do you think? They'd have to wrack their brains to recall how important that such-and-such was. It was incredibly valuable to have those minds to draw on. They often didn't agree, but that was perfectly fine with me. I took that as a signal that the decision wasn't simply binary, but a question of proportion, as so many
design decisions turn out to be.

There are also the teachers I studied with while completing an MFA: Ehud Havazelet,
Margot Livesey, Joan Silber, Richard Russo, and Wilton Barnhardt. They were endlessly patient.
I tend to write really wacky first drafts, and they were often confronted with crazy stuff,
out of control experiments. These were followed by many naive questions of the form, "But why NOT do it that way?"

A FINAL NOTE: TAKE A LOOK AT LYNN'S INTERVIEW WITH DAVID!

More Insights on the Writing Process

More Q&A with bestselling author David Wroblewski about the experience of working with his editor...

LR: How did it feel to have an editor to work with after having worked on the book for so long?

DW: I had contradictory emotions. It was a great relief not to be working alone anymore. I understood that I'd taken the book as far as I could on my own, and if it was going to be improved, I needed to work with someone with more experience. On the other hand, I had a fairly clear idea about how this novel ought to work. And I knew that aesthetic decisions can be made collaboratively only up to a point, after which they are emotional, intuitive, irrational. My great fear was that I would find myself in a position where I couldn't explain my reasons for revising (or not revising) something, and look like a nut case. Which I suspect I did, sometimes.

Lee, to her great credit, understood how to manage this dynamic much better than I. Immovable object v. irresistible force situations rarely happened, and when it looked like we were getting close, we talked things through. Have I mentioned that Lee is hilariously funny? She made me laugh during our editorial discussions, often precisely when we were talking about the most difficult issues.

Plus, Lee worked HARD on the editing. Sections of the manuscript had pace problems, where the drama should never have flagged and yet did. Several times, I simply could not see how to go about making repairs. When that happened, Lee pushed up her sleeves and mapped out a solution (or several) and got me rolling again. 2007 evaporated in the process. When I looked up, it was August. Then November.

more to come...

A Bestseller!

Hello All,

Since my last post about The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, the book has been steadily climbing the New York Times bestseller list, where it currently resides at #5 - very exciting for this first-time author! He has taken some time out of what is no doubt a frantically-busy schedule to answer a few more questions for us.

LR: Tell us about your experience working with your editor, Lee Boudreaux. At what point in the life of the book did she first read it? How much did it change since you two began working together?

[Note to readers: many of you who aren't in the book publishing business may never become aware of who edits a particular book, but the editor can often have a significant influence on a work. This editor, Lee Boudreaux, is well-known and respected in the industry, and is the force behind a number of high-quality works of literary fiction.]

DW: Lee first saw the book in December 2006. It had been a "completed manuscript" several times over at that point. I'd been working on Edgar for so long that I'd declared a moratorium on changing anything until some editor put the book under contract, which I expected would be never (despite the prediction of my superstar agent, Eleanor Jackson, who said it would be placed by the end of the year.) In fact, I was so sure Edgar wasn't going to be published that
I accepted a new, demanding job that November and resigned my old, comfortable job. During my two weeks' notice period, we went from no interest to several interested editors, to an auction.

Note to self: never doubt Eleanor.

That manuscript -- the one Lee accepted -- was the result of a cutting-only draft that took four months and reduced the length of the book by about 15 percent. I thought I'd cut everything that could be cut, maybe even a little more. I was wrong, of course.

LR: How did you work together – was she a hands-on editor or not?

DW: I have nothing to compare our work with, so I can't say in any absolute sense. Lee might answer quite differently than I. But it FELT as if she was hands-on, in a good way. The number one thing to know about Lee Boudreaux is that she eats rocket fuel for breakfast. Every once in a while she slows down to my speed, but it takes an effort of will on her part, and I can almost hear the thunderclap when she hangs up the phone and shifts back into her regular gear.

Lee went over that manuscript with an eye for detail that was, to put it mildly, alarming. Since I had recently cut so much, I knew she was bound to find continuity errors. But Lee probed everything, including story elements that had been givens from day one. She'd warned me, but I was still floored. It took several months to think through all her questions, and I'd be lying if I said I enjoyed it. But her questions were legitimate, across the board, and she was always
asking what was best for the book. We ended up going through the book twice more, with varying emphasis, before calling it done.

The end result was that the manuscript shrunk by an additional ten percent as we cleared away extraneous details and narrative tangents that obscured the story's larger movement. That was a surprise. I'd thought the final result might actually be longer.

[more to come...]

Wroblewski continued

LR: Many writers wish to become published authors. Being one who has achieved this lofty goal, can you describe something of how it feels?

DW: It feels like a natural outgrowth of the work, to be honest. I'm very proud of my experience in making software -- thirty years or so – which can be every bit as creative as writing a novel or making a photograph. You learn from those disciplines how arbitrary such boundaries are, between the work-in-progress and the work that is "done". It's never done. You could always do more. But nevertheless, you're finished with it, and it becomes this beautiful, foreign artifact that looks nothing like the stack of laser printer paper you've lived with for so long. Just when it becomes perfectly real to everyone else, it looks least like what you've known it to be as the writer.

I remember calling one of my writing teachers, Joan Silber, and asking how I would know when I was done with this book. I thought maybe I WAS done, I told her, but the result was by no means perfect. She said that perfection wasn't something to strive for, or even possible, in a novel. Maybe a short story, but not a novel. I've always been glad I made that phone call. I surely take comfort in that idea right now.

More Words with David Wroblewski

LR: Can you describe the contrast between the solitary work of writing and the work of promoting the book: shaking hands, signing books, smiling, posing for photos, giving interviews?

DW: As much as possible, I'm trying to approach all those activities as a wide-eyed first-timer. I don't think a person stops learning from a novel just because it is printed and on the shelves; in fact, it seems like that's when all sorts of new, interesting feedback should begin to come in. The trick, I think, is to let it accumulate before trying to make sense of it, rather than jumping on each comment as it arrives.

The question I want to answer for myself is, what is there to be learned from these things? The interviews have been great fun, by and large -- it's mainly a function of how well prepared the interviewer is, and the majority have been thoughtful and interesting. But oftentimes only 2% of what was discussed winds up in print, and the reduction can be disappointing, even when it is done well. The signings are enjoyable, but the chance to talk to people is all too brief.

We'll see. Shut up and watch, I tell myself. The received attitude from some writers is that these things are a pain in the backside. And yes, they fragment your time terribly, and take you away from your family and your routine. Unless you are that rare person who can write amidst chaos, they are hell on your writing. But they feel like a privilege to me, most especially the chance to talk with readers at bookstores.

Here's David!

Well, The Story of Edgar Sawtelle continues to be lauded as the "must read" book of the summer, and to receive more good press. Hurrah!

Here's a piece from today's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121383011826886483.html?mod=2_1167_1

And here’s some Q&A with the author, a wonderful guy who really cares what readers think about his work:

LR: Dolly Parton has a comment I read somewhere about it taking her years to become an overnight sensation. I feel like something of that applies to the situation you’re in now. Here you are with your first novel being published. You are in a fortunate situation, your publisher has done much to support you and promote your book, and signs are beginning to look like this is going to go well.

From a certain outside perspective, it all looks quite effortless. And yet, you spent ten years writing your book. That means, to those who aren’t writers and haven’t had this experience, ten years of countless hours alone in a room with a computer, ten years of rewrites, ten years of new directions, despair, and renewed hope.

How does it feel to be on the verge of publication after all the work you put into crafting The Story of Edgar Sawtelle?

DW: I alternate between wistful, excited, nerve-wracked, and busy as hell these days, and at any given time I'm feeling several contradictory emotions. I'm relieved to be done; I want to take Edgar back and do one more draft; I can't wait to get started on the next book. But this is typical, for me, at the end of a long project -- I resist letting go even long after it's out of my hands. A person gets familiar with their particular hunk of clay, and it's comforting andfamiliar to keep working it.
[more tomorrow…]

Rave Reviews

David Wroblewski will be visiting soon to blogalogue with me, but he’s a little too busy now being chased by the media. There’s a great review in today’s New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/books/13book.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin

Of course, I already knew that it’s a great book. I was lucky enough to read a pre-publication edition of The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, and I loved it right away. I taught the book last term in my Temple U “Sneak Peek” course, and all the students thought it was terrific. I’ve since been recommending it to anyone who will listen, and everyone who reads it loves it. You should read it too!

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle

There was an author reading last night at the Tattered Cover bookstore in Denver. The Tattered Cover (www.tatteredcover.com), if you don’t already know, is one of the finest and most interesting independent bookstores in the US. You can truly get lost there, and spend a whole day browsing in glorious racks and rows of books. You won’t get hungry either, because they have a really good restaurant on site.

Anyway, readings at the Tattered Cover happen all the time, but I’d particularly like to mention last night’s, which was by first-time novelist David Wroblewski. I wasn’t there, but I have read his book and interviewed the author, and it’s a really great new book. Yesterday was book’s official publication date. It has already received some great press, and I’m sure the great reviews are going to keep rolling in.

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle is, according to the author, “a boy and his dog” story for grown-ups. It takes place on a farm in rural Wisconsin in the 1970s, where the Sawtelle family raise a special breed of dogs. Edgar is their mute 14-year old son who has a very special relationship with the dogs, particularly one dog named Almondine.

Over the next few days I’ll be talking more about this book and interviewing the author. For now, take a look at one recent review: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504378.html

Final Q&A (for now) with Lauren Groff

LR: How did you undertake your research? What were some of your best sources?

LG: My research was intense--I spent a long time in the New York State Historical library in Cooperstown, looking at old Freeman's Journals, theses on Cooperstown, boxes of clippings and other stuff. I read as much James Fenimore Cooper as I could and was lucky to have read this incredible book on William Cooper (James Fenimore Cooper's father), called William Cooper's Town (heartily recommended). And then, when I assembled everything, I began to twist facts this way and that, and my characters came alive, and twisted them some more.

Thanks for Lauren Groff for her great new book and for taking the time to answer my questions!
LR

Monsters and Ghosts in Templeton

more Q&A with Lauren Groff. . .

LR: Do you have an interest in the supernatural?

LG: I think the supernatural has an interest in me, sadly. That, or I had far too intense an imagination and far too terrible eyesight to NOT see ghosts beside my childhood bed. And I have a great story about how this novel came to be--I was in the middle of swimming Cooperstown's lake when I saw something below me...something enormous and very thrilling...and wanted to give voice to the mystery there. But I never actually intended to write about supernatural elements, because I feared that people wouldn't take the book seriously. That said, I had to--the story forced these elements on me and wouldn't let go until I wrote them.

More Monsters Q&A

Many of the chapters in The Monsters of Templeton include some great photographs that really add to the book. So we asked:
Q: Did you find the photos before or after the text? How/where did you find them?

A: Some photos I found before I wrote the text, and formed the characters based on their images--others I found afterwards. I spent some glorious months and years in antique stores, flea markets and on eBay to find the right images. Some were mine to begin with (my mother is Vi as an adorable child); some were given to me (Vi as an adult is actually the photo of someone who is integral to my book, but who probably doesn't want me to tell on her); some, I searched and despaired until I found them. Marmaduke is this enormous 17-th century Dutch oil that's hanging somewhat gloomily over my fireplace in Florida--freaking out all of my dinner guests (he's frowning down pretty judgmentally), but he's also a fabulous conversational piece.

Apologies!!

Hi,
Sorry - I promised you Q&A from Lauren Groff, author of The Monsters of Templeton, and then I disappeared. I actually went to LA for the annual book industry trade show, called Book Expo. More on that later. First, here's question & answer #1 from Lauren:

Q: How long did the book take to write?

A: From the first sentence of the first draft to when I gave it to my agent, it took about three-and-a-half years to write Monsters...add in another year for editing (and ongoing edits that I wish I could make every time I read it...but can't!), and you have a good part of my adult life. In a real sense, though, I have been working on this book my whole life--I've been storing up stories and tall-tales and characters since I first started writing seriously (every day) when I was fourteen. But it wasn't until I was living in California, very hungry for my hometown, that I sat down (after having written two very massively failed previous novels) to write about Cooperstown.

Monsters

In a post in late February, I wrote about an experience teaching a wonderful book called The Monsters of Templeton by Lauren Groff. As I explained then, this experience was the inspiration for this blog. Allow me to quote myself:

[from 2/28/08]
"Recently, in a class I teach at Temple U, we were discussing a great new book, The Monsters Of Templeton, by Lauren Groff. After a lively two-hour discussion about the book, my students still had more questions. They wondered things like: How long did it take her to write the book? Where did she get those photographs she used in the book? Also, some of the content made them wonder if the author has an interest in the supernatural.

After listening to a few of their questions, I had an idea. “Do you want me to ask her these things?” I asked the class. They responded with enthusiasm. So I emailed my questions to the book’s publicist, who forwarded them to Lauren Groff, who took the time to answer me directly in great detail. She told us everything we wanted to know! What a thrill for all of us!"

In April of this year, The Monsters of Templeton was listed on the 2008 shortlist for the prestigious UK Orange Broadband Prize for Fiction, and the book is getting amazing reviews and endorsements from the likes of Stephen King.

Here is my Q&A with Lauren Groff. . . (starting tomorrow -- I'm leaving now for the Book Expo in LA...)

More Comments on Book Reviews

Michelle Latiolais adds:

I think serious writers of poetry and prose should be asked to review more often, and I think they should take up this task as a responsibility. Most of the smartest response to writing comes from writers showing us something about the writing, and kind of showing us from the inside. Carol Muske Dukes wrote a column for several years for the Los Angeles Times just because she felt the responsibility to create a forum for poetry if she could. Ron Carlson--my colleague at UC Irvine--just wrote a marvelous review of Peter Mattiessen's Shadow Country that was published in the Los Angeles Times. It was a writer writing about the craft he perceived in another writer's work.

One aspect of so much reviewing today that I find startling is the inability of the reviewer to enter into the world of the book. Instead, the book is flogged with some measure of reality that the reviewer perceives as not only operable, but exclusive of all other realities. You've heard these criticisms ad nauseam. They go something like "this is not believable," or "no mother would do . . . ." I'm always startled. John Updike does it in a recent review of Andrew Sean Greer's new novel that was published in The New Yorker. It seems to me that the one itty bitty thing someone might have observed along the way is that all manner of behavior is not only possible, but present in the human condition.

More from Michelle Latiolais on reviewers

I guess you want me to respond to Jonathan Franzen's remarks. [Note: Franzen's comments are reported at: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523349]

I'm not sure I want to add to the nastiness, but I stopped reading Michiko Kakutani years ago. Let's just leave it at that. I always read John Leonard in Harper's--actually I usually read all the reviews in Harper's. Here I am claiming I don't read reviews and when I think about it, I actually do read a fair number, but I'm careful, oh so careful who I read, because I really can be furious for a week. I remember a review of some memoir written by Edmund White's nephew that wouldn't have been published if he hadn't been Edmund White's nephew and the reviewer dismissed all--ALL--of Edmund White's work as self-absorbed and autobiographical. The irony was of course beautiful, a memoir that probably shouldn't have been published and wouldn't have if his uncle weren't famous, but here was a chance to discuss why Edmund White's first two novels are so important, and particularly important to young men trying to find their way in the world, whether homosexual or not. In other words, White's work and how the nephew came to be better in the world after living with his uncle are connected. Instead, the review thought it just fine to toss away a lifetime's work with one sentence, and to not even mention White as the extensive biographer of Jean Genet. Just stupidity. That was yet again a New York Times review.

--ML

Latiolais on Wieseltier

Note: the comments below refer to the following review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Wieseltier-t.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=1877d09dd77c7181&ex=1367121600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Thank you for sending the Leon Wieseltier review of Martin Amis' The Second Plane, a review that I thought seemed thoughtful and contentious and very specifically skeptical of much of what he characterizes as Amis' bluster. I don't see anything wrong with that. Quite the contrary, this review seems as though it would spark a very good discussion, and a much needed one on secularism and morality. Not too long ago, a Harvard theologian was interviewed on NPR and was asked if he thought atheists could be moral and he answered "no." I was choking with indignation, particularly since his religious authority shouldn't be allowed to just stand in for unassailable moral rectitude, which might or might not exist, but he wasn't questioned further, and I wondered why.
Too much is said in America and left unresponded to. I do hope that this Leon Wieseltier review is responded to, and seriously, as much of what he accuses Amis of, he seems somewhat guilty of himself, and yet I do take his point about secularism. I believe Saddam Hussein was a secularist, and though he was brutal, I think the argument is made that he kept all the various factions of Iraq together because he was secular. Of course, that's not all he was! So, claiming higher moral ground for secularism might be dicey in many instances. I don't know; I'm not a very good historian. I have always said that man will find some rationale for killing his fellow man, if not religion, some other belief or credo, or gold or diamonds, or what have you. I'm not very hopeful that way.
Another aspect of the Wieseltier piece that I think might be discussed is aesthetics and truth. I don't see aesthetics as necessarily undermining seriously intellectual discussion--or the search for truths--but Wieseltier seems to feel there's a cheapening of rigor. I'm not sure he's right, but it depends on the writer, of course.

Book Reviews and Book Reviewers

Dear Michelle,
Your comments about reviewers are harsh indeed! And yet, clearly, your feelings are shared by many other authors. A recent piece (4/27/08) in the New York Times Book Review by Leon Wieseltier critiquing Martin Amis has drawn much commentary…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Wieseltier-t.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=1877d09dd77c7181&ex=1367121600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
… and just last week Jonathan Franzen was quoted in the Harvard Crimson disparaging reviewers and saying:
“The reviews tend to be repetitive and tend to be so filled with error that they’re kind of unbearable to read, even the nice ones,” Franzen said. “The most upsetting thing nowadays is the feeling that there’s no one out there responding intelligently to the text,” he said. “So few people are actually doing serious criticism. It’s so snarky, it’s so ad hominum, it’s so black and white.” “The stupidest person in New York City is currently the lead reviewer of fiction for the New York Times,” he added, referring to controversial, Pulitzer-Prize winning reviewer Michiko Kakutani.
[as quoted in The Harvard Crimson]
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523349
At the same time, publishers are so eager to get reviews, as they can really help book sales (even negative reviews are often helpful!), and they complain that the number of review venues is dwindling.
And finally, I remember a great story I read in the Times years ago about an author whose book had just been published and received a stellar review in a major paper. Encountering the author at a cocktail party, someone said to him: “Congratulations on the good review!” to which he responded (haughtily, no doubt): “I didn’t write the review!”
So what can be done to improve the state of reviewing today? Any further comments on reviews and reviewers and/or advice for authors and publishers regarding reviews?
Thanks!
Lynn

Claustrophobic Writing

from Michelle:

I think pretty much what is meant by "claustrophobic" is interior, a concentration on the psychological, though certainly I've heard complaints that a piece of writing doesn't leave a certain room, and that that is claustrophobic. My response is "so what?" If that's what the writing is about, someone who doesn't leave a certain room, and that's what a writer is giving me is a deeply felt sense of this interiority, I'm your reader. Give me that any day over writing that is psychologically simplistic, which so much writing is, and yet that might be necessarily so, too. After all, no writing could actually capture all the intricate psychological circuitry of any given moment of a character's head. Right? This is all smoke and mirrors, this trying to get at fully rendered psychological worlds.

I don't read many reviews. I stopped some years ago, because I could lose a week being so flabbergasted that someone's three nasty and moronic paragraphs was considered an appraisal of a piece of art. The pathetic state of book reviewing has hurt both male and female writers; I'm not sure anyone has been spared. This said, I admire the New Yorker and The New York Review of Books for still making room for serious reviews.
http://www.newyorker.com/
http://www.nybooks.com/