I don't think I had read this the first time around so thanks for sharing it with us again. I am looking forward to whatever you have in store for us next Jay.
Thanks, Matthew. I'm particularly glad you got to read this -- just to know each other better. Like you, I very much appreciate the relationships I've formed on Substack.
I love the bit about Pauline Kael. I laughed. I miss her brand of criticism.
I am going to go out on a limb here, so bear with me. What prompts me to do so, Jay, is your statement, "I begin to feel like Harry Shaw." Reading about your "fictionalized autobiography" and in particular your creation Harry Shaw, who is not a writer, I am reminded of the recent rukus about the Netflix series "Baby Reindeer," which is based on the real-life (and terrifying) experience of Richard Gadd, who wrote and acts in his own drama. Apparently, despite Gadd's efforts to fictionalize his stalker, "Martha" in the series, so that anyone watching the show could not identify her, came to naught. Fiona Harvey, portrayed as "Martha" in the show, claims she easily could identify herself in the character, and if she could, so could others, and so what Gadd wrote is "fiction" and "hyperbole"; calling him a liar, she's threatening to take Gadd to court. (I happen to think that the actor in the role of "Martha" also bears a resemblance to Harvey.) This might all seem convoluted, especially to anyone who hasn't seen the series, but I find it a rich and fascinating example of what a writer does in needing to create and sustain relationships with his characters, including the character of himself and especially when the thing produced is deemed "documentary," as was Gadd's, and still make what he's created "honest." Where, for example, does autobiography leave off and fiction begin? How much must real life be fictionalized to avoid being sued but still imbue characters with what Gadd calls "emotional truth." When does story no longer belong to its creator? In Gadd's case, the mystery of who "Martha" is in real life took on a life of its own, with people on social media doing their own kind of investigation into "the facts." And then there is the subject, in Gadd's case it's stalking and abuse, that so many have experienced and know intimately. How does the writer keep that believable but restrained?
As always, Jay, I admire the vast array of writing you do. The sheer number of projects in which you engage is sometimes mind-boggling; but then I think, I, too, write, and am not satisfied to limit myself to one particular kind of writing. Perhaps its best equivalent is the entrepreneur, who is always off on the next project and somehow able to bring them all to completion.
Yes, that wide range of interests and endeavors is a commonality we share. Having watched "Baby Reindeer" so far isn't one of them. Somehow the title had entered my consciousness, but I couldn't even have told you what it is. Your comment required me to investigate, of course. I don't myself think the complications of memoir, truth, fact, and fiction are one giant unsortable mess leaving us with no place to stand in making what seem, sometimes, necessary judgments. That doesn't mean I think it isn't all complicated. It is. But I believe we can sort our way through the complications most of the time.
I haven't watched the show yet, though it seems I may need to. The reviews are outstanding from what I see. But now along with some reading I did, I watched a lot of an interview Peers Morgan did with Fiona Harvey. She's pretty convincing in it, and to the degree she might be lying I suspect a lot of that would be discovered pretty quickly. Obviously, there are a lot eyes on the whole situation.
If Gadd's story is true, as he and Netflix have claimed, then it seems to me the major responsibility for what Harvey is experiencing lies with those people who felt compelled to investigate her identify and dox her. Why let their busybody malice, their narrow, mean prosecutorial interference in the lives of others off the hook? If Gadd's story is true, she's a disturbed person, a frightening stalker who has no case claiming the writer-victim of her behavior didn't exercise enough care in protecting her identity? He hardly owed her that in the balance against his creative wish to tell his story.
If Harvey is telling the truth and Gadd has completely misrepresented their relationship and history, then regardless of what legal bar her claims might or might not rise above, he maligned her in a completely unsupportable way, with precious little care to protect her identity and her from harm. In that case -- the one she's claiming -- the issues are not those of a writer's relationship to readers and any trust they place in some meaningful balance between fact and greater truth in memoir.
And I feel that passion as a gift, too. Thanks for appreciating the Magellan scene! I've talked about the book enough over the past year, that I thought -- especially given what I'm up to this week -- that I'd share a morsel. I've only offered fiction on Homo Vitruvius once before.
Jay, thank you for that scorcher of poem by Schwartz, the Baez song (which I’d forgotten), and above all your writing and wisdom about producing a newsletter while working on a novel. Another Substacker I admire has also cut back on frequency, as I probably will myself when my spark of a big idea demands more attention. There may be those who can toss off an essay. I am not one. I can’t imagine offering a suite of services, as some writers here are doing, to justify paid subscriptions. The small minority who choose to pay me, you or anyone are those who have both money to spare and profound admiration for the words that are everything to us. Do you know Gillian Welch’s song “Everything is Free” (I prefer the Holmes Brothers’ version)? “Someone hit the big score, they figured it out/ That we’re gonna do it anyway, even if it doesn’t pay.”
We're clearly in sync on these issues, Rona. Speaking for myself, too, a more reasonable publishing schedule will enable me to maintain my Substack as a long-term home for my writing life while I pursue other, longer projects in the background. And once a week is a lot. As many as 52 shorter creative or critical pieces in a year (I'm sure I'll take weeks off) in addition to that other work? That's some productivity!
Glad you enjoyed the Baez (my very young manhood in a song) and the Schwartz poem. He really blazed a trail.
I love the way you describe your writing just before the Magellanic excerpt. :-) I, too, write beside windows. I wonder what would change if I wrote in a closet. Maybe I’d concentrate better! You give me an idea of something to try.
Your Magellanic novel has sounded very ambitious to me. Thank you for the excerpt. I can’t tell: Do you have a “favorite child” between these two characters?
I don't even want to think about writing without a window!
Another great question, about the Magellan novel. I do have great ambitions in it. Thanks for appreciating it. Magellan is the man, right? He's the reason for the history, and he was a complex figure. I made Cartagena the title character rather than Magellan for reasons that can only best be appreciated in reading the finished novel. They, the focal points of parts 1 and 2 respectively, and a third character, the focus of part 3, are largely characterological blank slates -- so little is known about them, especially Cartagena and Diego Carmona, the third character. That allowed me very free range to imagine them and enter empathetically into each of their persons. But it is Carmona, an ordinary sailor who was the only of the three to return, on the last of the ships three years after departure, who is my favorite child. :)
I don't think I had read this the first time around so thanks for sharing it with us again. I am looking forward to whatever you have in store for us next Jay.
Thanks, Matthew. I'm particularly glad you got to read this -- just to know each other better. Like you, I very much appreciate the relationships I've formed on Substack.
I love the bit about Pauline Kael. I laughed. I miss her brand of criticism.
I am going to go out on a limb here, so bear with me. What prompts me to do so, Jay, is your statement, "I begin to feel like Harry Shaw." Reading about your "fictionalized autobiography" and in particular your creation Harry Shaw, who is not a writer, I am reminded of the recent rukus about the Netflix series "Baby Reindeer," which is based on the real-life (and terrifying) experience of Richard Gadd, who wrote and acts in his own drama. Apparently, despite Gadd's efforts to fictionalize his stalker, "Martha" in the series, so that anyone watching the show could not identify her, came to naught. Fiona Harvey, portrayed as "Martha" in the show, claims she easily could identify herself in the character, and if she could, so could others, and so what Gadd wrote is "fiction" and "hyperbole"; calling him a liar, she's threatening to take Gadd to court. (I happen to think that the actor in the role of "Martha" also bears a resemblance to Harvey.) This might all seem convoluted, especially to anyone who hasn't seen the series, but I find it a rich and fascinating example of what a writer does in needing to create and sustain relationships with his characters, including the character of himself and especially when the thing produced is deemed "documentary," as was Gadd's, and still make what he's created "honest." Where, for example, does autobiography leave off and fiction begin? How much must real life be fictionalized to avoid being sued but still imbue characters with what Gadd calls "emotional truth." When does story no longer belong to its creator? In Gadd's case, the mystery of who "Martha" is in real life took on a life of its own, with people on social media doing their own kind of investigation into "the facts." And then there is the subject, in Gadd's case it's stalking and abuse, that so many have experienced and know intimately. How does the writer keep that believable but restrained?
As always, Jay, I admire the vast array of writing you do. The sheer number of projects in which you engage is sometimes mind-boggling; but then I think, I, too, write, and am not satisfied to limit myself to one particular kind of writing. Perhaps its best equivalent is the entrepreneur, who is always off on the next project and somehow able to bring them all to completion.
Yes, that wide range of interests and endeavors is a commonality we share. Having watched "Baby Reindeer" so far isn't one of them. Somehow the title had entered my consciousness, but I couldn't even have told you what it is. Your comment required me to investigate, of course. I don't myself think the complications of memoir, truth, fact, and fiction are one giant unsortable mess leaving us with no place to stand in making what seem, sometimes, necessary judgments. That doesn't mean I think it isn't all complicated. It is. But I believe we can sort our way through the complications most of the time.
I haven't watched the show yet, though it seems I may need to. The reviews are outstanding from what I see. But now along with some reading I did, I watched a lot of an interview Peers Morgan did with Fiona Harvey. She's pretty convincing in it, and to the degree she might be lying I suspect a lot of that would be discovered pretty quickly. Obviously, there are a lot eyes on the whole situation.
If Gadd's story is true, as he and Netflix have claimed, then it seems to me the major responsibility for what Harvey is experiencing lies with those people who felt compelled to investigate her identify and dox her. Why let their busybody malice, their narrow, mean prosecutorial interference in the lives of others off the hook? If Gadd's story is true, she's a disturbed person, a frightening stalker who has no case claiming the writer-victim of her behavior didn't exercise enough care in protecting her identity? He hardly owed her that in the balance against his creative wish to tell his story.
If Harvey is telling the truth and Gadd has completely misrepresented their relationship and history, then regardless of what legal bar her claims might or might not rise above, he maligned her in a completely unsupportable way, with precious little care to protect her identity and her from harm. In that case -- the one she's claiming -- the issues are not those of a writer's relationship to readers and any trust they place in some meaningful balance between fact and greater truth in memoir.
Wonderfully written scene with Magellan and his prisoner.
I never viewed myself as a writer the way you have. It's a gift.
I juggle identities.
And I feel that passion as a gift, too. Thanks for appreciating the Magellan scene! I've talked about the book enough over the past year, that I thought -- especially given what I'm up to this week -- that I'd share a morsel. I've only offered fiction on Homo Vitruvius once before.
Jay, thank you for that scorcher of poem by Schwartz, the Baez song (which I’d forgotten), and above all your writing and wisdom about producing a newsletter while working on a novel. Another Substacker I admire has also cut back on frequency, as I probably will myself when my spark of a big idea demands more attention. There may be those who can toss off an essay. I am not one. I can’t imagine offering a suite of services, as some writers here are doing, to justify paid subscriptions. The small minority who choose to pay me, you or anyone are those who have both money to spare and profound admiration for the words that are everything to us. Do you know Gillian Welch’s song “Everything is Free” (I prefer the Holmes Brothers’ version)? “Someone hit the big score, they figured it out/ That we’re gonna do it anyway, even if it doesn’t pay.”
We're clearly in sync on these issues, Rona. Speaking for myself, too, a more reasonable publishing schedule will enable me to maintain my Substack as a long-term home for my writing life while I pursue other, longer projects in the background. And once a week is a lot. As many as 52 shorter creative or critical pieces in a year (I'm sure I'll take weeks off) in addition to that other work? That's some productivity!
Glad you enjoyed the Baez (my very young manhood in a song) and the Schwartz poem. He really blazed a trail.
I love the way you describe your writing just before the Magellanic excerpt. :-) I, too, write beside windows. I wonder what would change if I wrote in a closet. Maybe I’d concentrate better! You give me an idea of something to try.
Your Magellanic novel has sounded very ambitious to me. Thank you for the excerpt. I can’t tell: Do you have a “favorite child” between these two characters?
I don't even want to think about writing without a window!
Another great question, about the Magellan novel. I do have great ambitions in it. Thanks for appreciating it. Magellan is the man, right? He's the reason for the history, and he was a complex figure. I made Cartagena the title character rather than Magellan for reasons that can only best be appreciated in reading the finished novel. They, the focal points of parts 1 and 2 respectively, and a third character, the focus of part 3, are largely characterological blank slates -- so little is known about them, especially Cartagena and Diego Carmona, the third character. That allowed me very free range to imagine them and enter empathetically into each of their persons. But it is Carmona, an ordinary sailor who was the only of the three to return, on the last of the ships three years after departure, who is my favorite child. :)
Oh good! I’m glad your favorite survives. What a wonderful idea, full of tension and drama, and open to interpretation.