
I am suspicious of contemporary fiction. I will turn to the first page of a book, hoping to find a new world to fall into. I want to be enveloped into a world that appears to have evolved on its own, and grown by its own momentum. Instead I find a watch, constructed by a watchmaker who has tried hard not to make himself invisible. He will have left signs of his crafting, “look at this cleverly constructed cog;” “the watchmaker was here.” He will make sure I appreciate the determined quirkiness of the protagonist before allowing that individual to proceed with the plot. I could blame myself: the watchmaker thinks I am too stupid to notice.
Sometimes the watchmaker can’t decide which cog pleases him more, and even though both cogs serve the same function, he leaves both in: “She’s cordon bleu meets Detroit, she’s Julia Child if she were Aretha Franklin,” says Claire in Audrey Niffenberger’s The Time Traveler’s Wife. The two sentences convey the same information and in essentially the same way: Motown Mammy’s a mighty fine cook. Engineering redundancy is important to keep airplanes from falling out of the sky (that’s why they have two wings), but it weighs down fiction.
Sometimes I can tell on the first sentence, sometimes it takes a couple pages: I cannot fall into this world because it is no world, just an elaborate puppet show. Countless books have disappointed me in this way, and I have nearly given up on contemporary fiction. Only nearly though, because I am an incorrigible optimist. I still come home from the used bookstore with a stack of books, some vetted in the store, some I’ve never heard of, some because—meh—the cover was pretty, and it cost a buck.
That’s how I came to own Jedediah Berry’s The Manual of Detection. It cost a dollar, and I was looking for mysteries to send my sister. I started reading it. Unwin, the protagonist, is coming up with pretexts for being at the train station. He’s there watching a woman in a plaid coat. There are details that should not be mistaken for clues and details that don’t look like clues, but in a couple hundred pages, I learn that those details are clues. But I don’t need to know that yet. I don’t yet need to know much. I don’t need to know anything more than what Unwin knows, so I am as unprepared as he is for his promotion from clerk to detective. Unwin does not want to be a detective. He is a C-L-E-R-K, and a good one. But to get his job back, he must find the missing detective whose place he has taken.
Unwin doesn’t know how to begin detecting, and because he’s not really a detective, he doesn’t want to look in his newly issued Manual of Detection. He bumbles around a slickly raining city, and succeeds only in piling more questions onto the still-unanswered first questions. This city through which he must traipse is dark and ominous, but not so ominous as the carnival on the edge of the city. And these questions that Unwin must answer arise organically from his activities, and—as the third act begins and Unwin finally starts to find answers—the answer fit symmetrically and naturally within this fanciful world.
I read this book slowly because I want to savor not knowing what is going on, to enjoy not being able to anticipate its direction. It will be the only time I will read this book, and not know what is important and what isn’t. I don’t yet know that it is all important. I won’t read slowly or carefully enough, because my need to know will eventually overpower my desire to enjoy. I will re-read it slowly, later, to take in all the things I know are important. I will marvel at all the ways the author didn’t draw attention to his cleverness, didn’t leave his fingerprints to smudge his world.
Note: I did not quote The Time Traveler's Wife exactly because my copy's in storage. Since no one's paying me to root through all the boxes of crap that are most unfortunately not labeled "Here be that Niffenberger book," while I grumble to myself about how I own too much crap and how there are crapless children in Uganda, you, the reader have a couple options: you can take on faith that I have captured the essence of the lines from The Time Traveler's Wife; you can go out and buy, borrow, or steal The Time Traveler's Wife and check my accuracy; or you can pay me to go through my own crap.
You probably shouldn't steal a copy, but if you do, know that you might get caught. If you get caught, telling the bookstore proprietor that I told you to steal that book is unlikely to excuse you from prosecution. And offering to pay me money to go through my crap, while it might seem like a viable option, probably won't work out either because I'm terribly lazy and think my time is worth a lot more than I can get anyone else to support. So your best bet is to just believe me. Trust me, baby, trust me.


Salon.com
Comments
I have mixed emotions about "Jedediah" being on the cover...I probably would have gone with just "Jed." It's akin to not trusting a writer who only uses an initial for his first name, well, sorta.
I think your tags are from the other face of Eve--and therapeutic.
jane, thank you. I have been reading. And I supposed it would be unfair to blame editors for failing to sufficiently stifle their creative geniuses.
However, I wholeheartedly agree that the invisible watchmaker is the one which enthralls me, and makes me stay up far too late, swallowing entire paragraphs and pages without chewing because I simply must know: "what happens next?"
It is always a pleasure to read you, Mrs. M. I do so enjoy your particula voice!
But if you are surrounded by bad writing, don't waste your time on watchmakers.
That being said, I should mention I lllllurved The Time Traveler's Wife. It is a fine, fine book, and mostly has flaws only a pedant would take issue with.
I also understand the grating presence of an author who just won't go ahead and disappear already. Bad writing is one thing (and not a good thing), but I'm not sure that it is actually more unbearable. Critical readers are probably more likely to agree on what is poorly written than on what is too-cleverly written, though, I suppose. I like Cormac McCarthy--really, I love him--but I well-read friends whose opinions on literature I genuinely respect who simply cannot abide him. Faulkner causes the same sort of divide, although I can't so easily forgive not appreciating Faulkner, even though that is petty of me.
And while we are on the subject of reading and writing, it amuses me that for all the talk here on OS about being writers, personal arguments and nastiness prompted by political disagreements attracts far more eyes than this beautifully written piece about reading. Go figure.
You always keep me interested and I really hate it when I finally scroll down to the box below the tags and it's all over. I can reread your posts, but its not as much fun as that first time through to see what's going on in that marvelous mind of yours. Note to readers: You have to read Mrs Michaels' tags. They are always the most cleverest.
I read a book last week that I had heard about for years and never had any interest in reading: "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque. I was completely engulfed in it. That doesn't happen much for a jaded rat like me. All of a sudden I have a new interest in WWI, and a new understanding of all the literature and all the films about war that followed that book. You can see little bits of "The Things They Carried" and "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon" in it. You just never know, do you?
But on the plus side, the attention I've attracted has been thoughtful and intelligent. I appreciate Faulkner, and I admire his work, but he's not someone I read for fun. I probably haven't picked up one of his books since the last time I had to write a paper about him.
Cormac McCarthy? I read an excerpt about a dead wolf by him on my AP Lit exam, and I must have gotten him, because I got a 5 on that exam, but all I remember is drawing a dead wolf in the margins.
T. Michael, thank you, thank you, thank you. I've decided to start treating the tags both as bonus features and as the conduit for all the writerly indulgences I can't in good conscience include in the piece itself. For an example of where I failed to do this, the line about why airplanes have two wings would probably be better off in the tags.
I find the contemporary author's voice more likely to be grating than the past writer's. Perhaps this is because time has weeded out the lesser writers, or perhaps because contemporary voices have many of the same tics and are therefore more noticeable. It's why when I lose my patience with contemporary writing, I turn back to the classics. It's how I came to finally appreciate The Great Gatsby, it's how I read The Moonstone. Older fiction is my refuge.