My Fiction and Me.
July 1, 2008
As a child, I was not necessarily what you might call an avid reader. I read more than most children, but I was very much a child of the television age. I grew up with Dr Who, The Six Million Dollar Man, Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, badly dubbed Godzilla movies from Japan and countless other films and serials. My imagination highly active, I found it easy to immerse myself in these stories, however ridiculous, and when I finally discovered (probably around the age of seven) that reading books could be fun, too, and not just something you did at school, I discovered an added, deeper element than the concept of “story”.
The characters I read about in those early days — Julian, Dick, Anne, George and Timmy the dog in the Famous Five books — weren’t like me. They were radically different, in many ways. They said “yikes!” a lot, for example, if I remember correctly, and I never did. But even these books were nothing like a televisual experience. There was a relationship — a relationship that I was a very real part of. I became those people I read about and they became me. Though I couldn’t have expressed it at the time, they were children and in spite of the differences, I could relate to them.
But that’s what I’ve always enjoyed most about the fiction I read. My relationship with the book and the characters in it. And this, in many ways, has carried over into my writing. I cherish that feeling of knowing intimately these people who have never existed in any real sense (though that isn’t strictly true with my latest novel, which is semiautobiographical.) When I first started writing novels over twenty years ago, I tried to focus on plot (I was writing genre fiction, after all) but my characters always seemed to take over. They were the story, I soon realised. The things that happened were secondary to that and what was important to me was how they dealt with it and what I could learn from the process.
I was fond in my early days as a writer of Stephen King novels and I particularly remember first reading Pet Sematary. I’m sure many of you are familiar with the story, so I’ll leave that behind a link — since that wasn’t what really made it work as a novel for me. As I recall, King took forever to get to the horror. Playing to his strength, he drew me into not the story, but the family. I felt as if I knew them, as if I’d sat on the front porch drinking a beer with them and shooting the breeze. I wanted it to stay like that all the way through. Normal, American, oddly attractive. But of course, it didn’t. The truck got the cat and novel slid into its inevitable bleak decline. And that’s why it worked. King created characters that I wanted to know, that I cared for — that were, frankly, bloody good company.
And I suppose that’s a good part of why I write today. Good company. Yes, my characters may occasionally (okay quite often!) be complete fuck ups — but nobody knows them better than me. We become friends for a while. They tell me their secrets and being the decent, caring, trustworthy bloke that I am, I tell the world!
That’s when the friendship usually ends. But that’s okay. By that time, I’ve made a whole bunch of new friends.
The writer: never alone.
[This is the first of the Idiosyncratica monthly topics. If you are interested in reading what the other members of the group have to say on this subject, please remember to check back later for the links -- which I will be posting very soon. If you can't wait, however, please feel free to click on the Idiosyncratica links in the sidebar.]













July 1, 2008 at 12:41
Wow, that is an impressive introduction to your writing. The difference between you and I is that while I experienced those moments of friendship with characters, I never saw how to do it myself.
July 1, 2008 at 17:38
I think, in many ways, it’s something I have always done, Archie — even before I started writing or discovered a love of books. What I mean is, my play as a child was always rich with characters I created. I don’t ever remember having (and my parents can’t remember my having) an imaginary friend — but I always found it easy to keep myself occupied with flights of fancy, etc. I was a classic daydreamer, I suppose. In fact, at school, I often got told off for not writing enough in English, primarily because I got caught up in ideas and forgot to write them down!
I’ve just had a quick look at your topic post but haven’t got time to comment, at the moment. I will tomorrow, though. Fascinating stuff!
July 2, 2008 at 12:16
Gary,
I think Salem’s Lot was the first King I read and I too was drawn not so much by the horror, but by the compelling characters he created. Without the emphasis on the people in the town, there would have been no ‘real’ horror, as we readers would not have invested any time caring about what happened to them.
I love what you’ve written about characters and their importance to you in your childhood. Especially as they’ve had such affect on your writing as an adult.
I’ll write a little more about my own character led fiction in my eventual post, which i’m sorry to say is a little delayed, as I’m currently in the US for my sister’s wedding.
July 2, 2008 at 15:15
[...] Posted on July 2, 2008 by kallioppe As a member of the recently-formed blog-group Idiosyncratica, led by Gary Murning, our first assignment is to post an introduction to the things we like to read [...]
July 2, 2008 at 16:44
kallioppe: Yes, Salem’s Lot is another good example. I pretty much stopped reading King after It (which I still love, in spite of its excesses!), but most of his early work did the same thing for me. It revealed to me someone I could give damn about, and then turned their world on its head. Writers can learn a lot from this approach. It’s very basic, yes, but it’s fundamental to good fiction, I believe. It can’t be emphasised enough; if the reader doesn’t care about the character/characters, it simply won’t work as effectively as it otherwise could — no matter how well-plotted and pacey it is.
Off to read everyone’s pieces, now! I hope the wedding goes well. Have fun!
July 2, 2008 at 22:15
I can’t believe I left Stephen King out of my post. He’s one of my all time favorites as well. And you’re so right about the way he writes characters.
One of my favorites by King is Gerald’s Game. In fact, I think I’m going to read it again now.
July 3, 2008 at 10:17
Actually, now that I think about it, I didn’t stop at It – if Gerald’s Game came after It, then that was probably about the last one I read. And I didn’t like it one bit.
I think I’d started to move away from him by that point, though, and this is probably more reflective of my attitude to his work than the work itself (though he did write some complete shit during that period!)
What do you think of his earlier stuff? If I had to pick a favourite I think I’d probably have to go with The Dead Zone.
July 4, 2008 at 01:09
Yeah, Gerald’s Game came a couple of years after It, which I didn’t care for much either.
Wow! The Dead Zone. That’s another good one I’ll have read again. King wrote so much it’s hard to keep up or remember it all. I agree that his earlier stuff was better, though. I quite liked Carrie and The Shining.
Do you like anything he published as Richard Bachman? I really enjoyed Thinner.
July 4, 2008 at 10:09
I love just about all of the Bachman books, especially Roadwork. Thinner was good but it was much more obviously a Stephen King book, in my opinion. Rage I thought was brilliant — insightful and intense — but King’s response in regard to its connection to the actual school shootings was, for me, as a writer, very worrying. Books influence people, sometimes negatively. But that does not make it the fault of the book or the author. Conveniently placed kitchen knives occasionally provide an inspirational means of killing someone so, hey, let’s ban them!
I lost a lot of respect for the guy over this one.
July 4, 2008 at 13:38
Thanks for link. I didn’t know about that. I read it and thought, “What a dumbass!”
I might have something more profound to say after I finish my coffee, but that’s all I could muster at this point. lol
July 4, 2008 at 17:41
Pre- or post-coffee, I’d say dumbass about covers it! LOL
July 9, 2008 at 14:11
I’m going to make myself unpopular and say that I actually quite liked It; it wasn’t great, and he’d already started to suffer from King’s Disease (i.e., books are about half again as long as they should be), but it was certainly enjoyable, in a kind of unpleasant way…
I didn’t like The Dead Zone that much, to be honest. A bit… sappy for me.
Ironically, I think On Writing is probably one of my favourite works by King…
As to why he withdrew Rage, well, Americans are litigious.
July 9, 2008 at 16:33
Not unpopular with me, Mike, mate. I also quite liked It. In fact, I seem to remember really enjoying it. I got the hardback for my 20th birthday. I’d just started writing my first novel (a horror novel called Dawn). The weather was actually rather nice for the time of year (September). And I had plenty of beer and wine that I’d been given as presents. It was a good time and a pretty good book!
I don’t buy the litigation explanation for the withdrawal of Rage, to be honest. If he were sued and the case actually went against him it would set a completely unworkable precedent. I’m always very cautious when I say that I don’t think something like that could ever happen (we are talking about America, after all!) but everyone would be suing authors, television producers, television networks, screenwriters, artists etc left right and centre. I don’t think it was ever really likely and I tend to feel that King’s withdrawal of Rage was a really shitty thing for a high profile author like him to do. It very nearly smacks of an admission of guilt, complicity. When a writer starts implying something like that… well, as a writer who has nowhere near the influence that he has I find it worrying.
In fact, I’ve just checked and he actually acknowledged the culpability of cultural and artistic projects etc in influencing in particular “troubled youths”. I think this is not only simplistic, I tend to feel, frankly, it’s bloody irresponsible — on a number of levels. He did qualify this by saying that artists and writers should be allowed to draw upon their culture in their work etc, but for me, the damage was (potentially) already done.
Christ, this voice recognition software just doesn’t know when to bloody stop, does it?
July 9, 2008 at 16:50
Hmm… I think I was unclear in my next to last comment. I didn’t like It that much, but I did like Gerald’s Game.
Mike:
That is not true at all. I should sue you for even suggesting it.
July 9, 2008 at 17:34
Go on, Lottie — sue his limey ass!