Is homage egotism?

So, I wanted to write the Bog Monster in part to pay homage to Franz Kafka and the Metamorphosis. Now how egotistical is that? And I find my sensibility for characterization is still influenced by Thomas Mann's.... What is the guy thinking?, you may ask.

I don't know. I'm not writing knock-offs. Gregor Samsa becomes a bug in a human world; Derek Sorensen becomes a human in a bug world. And I can't just write a single story, in the way Thomas Mann did so masterfully - they're layered, post-modern thick, but without the artistry that says, there's a reason for all this disorder, even if you can't see it.

The reason for my disorder is that's how I see stories. Layered. Banal. Marginally profound. Incomplete and competing. The narrator confesses a predilection for "B" movies and their kind of stories. That was a confession. It's as close as I'll get to those to whose work I owe so much.

It's finally time!

I have finally finished The Bog Monster of Booker Creek and - although much less onerous still time-consuming - its website.

I notice an odd convergence with This Blue Ball, given that I set out to make a very situated novel, after having written Blue Ball as if it could have unfolded anywhere in the country. I didn't intend it, but the same loose and interwoven structure is followed in the Bog Monster.

I still have worked through a narrator, but this one is very present (where Blue Ball's was by definition invisible). 

I worked with everyday characters, though all have a certain symbolic value. The Blue Ball had representative figures, but the plot dominated. Here, it's almost Seinfeldian in its lack of resolution.

Hot doc in Scribd and space-alien-infos

I discovered a few weeks ago that the novel had suddenly won a "hot" rating on scribd.com. I was pleased and surprised, but the reason for it was a bit more sobering. I am relatively certain the whole source of it can be found in the most common search terms used to find the document on scribd, all of which seem to involve these words: preteen, Indian, sex, lolita. I know they're all in there, but the search gives you, well, the wrong impression about the book. At some point and in someone's or some ones' minds, this coincidence made the novel seem mighty attractive.

Even though scribd continues to be the most popular venue (at least that I can check) for the novel, the fire is off. I'm sure folks were disappointed to find that pornography is a topic in the book, not its mode.

Here is another interesting venue for the novel, the first one to take the "share-alike" Creative Commons license seriously: http://www.space-alien-ufos.com . The editor there took the time to provide chapter headings for each "day" and generally did a nice very job of laying it out. I find the titles are a nice addition, even if they do interfere a bit with the conceit of the narrative. Or maybe I'm taken in by the assurance that at least one person has read the story with some care!

I also like that its author is identified as Wayne Muller. I'm sure that reveals something about the location of the editor, in a way that nicely echoes concerns of the novel's weblog author....

Heard about the bogmonster?

I'm all bog monster all the time now. The working title of my next book is The Bog Monster of Booker Creek. You can hear a first reading from it here.

It's a more personal book. I'm afraid people will find themselves all too tempted to map the characters onto my family and acquaintances. So let me make the standard disclaimer: the characters are all invented, and any similarity to individuals living or dead will be taken as a compliment.

In fact, I was inspired at several points to make fictional characters who share attributes with real people, but they (the fictional characters) were all conscribed for the purposes of the narrative. Insofar, resemblance is superficial and ultimately deceptive.

Wayne

Scribd handles audio version; and Rowling's revelation

Audio books are crazy popular. I wanted to create one of This Blue Ball, but didn't want to hear my own voice reading it. I uploaded the novel to Scribd the other day, and after a considerable wait, a very respectable if (still?) incomplete audio version emerged. Here it is embedded:



Download the mp3 version to hear it.... it's all auto-generated with a sped-up female computer-generated voice. I have to say that sass comes through that voice, albeit unintentionally.... I love the way irony sounds when delivered with such deadpan, repetitive delivery.

Why do I especially like this? Well, now that J.K. Rowling has let her cat out of the bag, and I find out that I've misinterpreted the unicorn origami in Blade Runner all these years, I can finally reveal who I believe is the unidentified narrator of This Blue Ball.... Have a listen to the recording, and think about it for a while. Who might regret the loss of life. Who might owe someone. Who might have the technological wherewithal... Just listen...

Is there a clue in the text? I think several. Can you go another way with this? Absolutely. Have at it!

Blooking Central

See Cheryl Hagedorn's blog for her reaction to the blook in This Blue Ball.

I have nothing but respect for people who can devote such energy to what amounts to a public service, an intellectual mill creating the grist for the rest of us.

The lens is destroying narrative

Here's the problem. The lens demands too much visual perspective, not enough mental perspective. We have become so used to the cold still third-person perspective needed to render a scene visually that we are unwilling to change our narrative engines to make use of the perspective of the narrator.

The omniscient narrator acts like a lens across the pages we write, but doesn't invite us into the story as a construction. It's all stagecraft and the most awkward of dramatic irony.

We put up with so much manipulation by the narrator who doesn't identify him- or herself, or his/her perspective, because we accept that the narrative will fulfill an experiential need on our part (I want my scifi; I want my romance; I want my murder mystery). The narrative lens fits that model of literature perfectly.

A character narrator seems like a cheap trick now. And maybe it is.

But at least we can follow the story on a shakey shoulder cam like a participant, not a consumer.