The above question is one I’ve been thinking about quite a lot just recently. The chapter outlines for Children of the Revolution are now complete (and, boy, am I happy with them!) and whilst there are immense similarities to my own experiences up to the age of about nineteen, and even though my protagonist possesses many Gary-like traits and attitudes, it’s still hard for me to comfortably view it as being about “me”. Even though, to a very large extent, it is.
The author John Irving once made an insightful comment. I’m quoting from memory, here, but it went something along the lines of how he was wary of/uncomfortable with the autobiographical form because he could “always remember a better version”. He was referring to that very human (and possibly very necessary) trait we have to revise our memories — to tweak them in our favour, to make ourselves the heroes of our own lives, or merely to present a more amusing story down the pub. I am very conscious of wanting to avoid this with Children of the Revolution. If Carl, my protagonist, is to be even a bit like me, I don’t want him morphing into some cape-wearing superhero — WheelchairMan, Righter of Educational Wrongs and All-round Good Egg.
To avoid this, I’m trying not to think of it in “semi-autobiographical” terms. I’m drawing on my past heavily (the school-based episodes have about a ninety percent factual base), but the emphasis in the phrase “semi-autobiographical novel” is solidly on the word “novel”. It has to be, if I’m to get the job done successfully. Carl is just another character in just another of my novels. A boy/man like any other — with faults and virtues alike. He’s not me, because if he were I might be tempted on some level to gloss over my own failings (not that there are that many, as I’m sure you know… I’ve told you often enough ;-)) and present an unbalanced view that would do no one any favours.
I might admit to the unmistakable likeness and the genetic match once the novel is written, but for now he’s someone I’ve just met — a stranger I’m learning to know and love.
The things a writer has to do!
Very good question. A good example is Kerouac’s ‘On The Road’, recently published in its unedited, paragraph and chapter free version, with Neal Cassidy, William Burroughs, and Allen Ginsberg’s actual names and not those of their literary replacements. A book that was previously classified as “fiction” (albeit fiction very clearly based on fact) is now, presumably, an autobiography.
I made a recent stab at writing a book based on my late teens and early 20s, and found it harder to write than anything else I’ve attempted in the last five years.
Oh, that reminds me… I was in the library today (I have The God Delusion reserved; not in yet, alas) and I saw this.
Yes, David — I’m kind of expecting this to be a tough one to write. That’s why I’ve outlined so thoroughly (twenty-five pages — unusual for me), in the hope that it might ease the pressure somewhat and let me focus on the language. It doesn’t do to get too comfortable, though, right?
Mike: Oh bugger ‘n’ bollocks. I knew that was going to happen. What do you think of Children of the Resolution? (The school is called Resolution School, after Cook’s ship.)
Thanks for the heads-up, mate. And have fun with Dicky Dawkins! (I’ve got a Christmas treat — tee hee — for Dawkins fans coming up soon, so watch this space ;-))
“Bugger and balls!” was what Michael York said in the episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm with the Tourette’s chef. Excellent stuff.
I like Children of the Resolution: it has the air of a pun or wordplay about it. I like puns. I feel they get excessively bad press, especially from the excessively bad press…
Nope, “bugger ‘n’ balls” was all my own work. I can tell you’re impressed. Beats you’re “education” non-quote… no?
Yes, my thoughts exactly (ish). I had toyed with that title early on, then opted for the more obvious variation. It feels right, actually. Children of the Resolution it is, then.
Probably.
I am cowed by your brilliance, swami. 🙂
Should bloody well think so…
Pingback: Completed Outline. « Gary William Murning Online
there is nothing semi autobiographical. a text is either a “referential” autobiography or an autobiographical fictional autobiography. see Philippe Lejeune’s books.
Thanks, Malik, but that kind of attempt at precision seems rather unnecessary and absured to me, unless you happen to be a French academic. Most people understand semi-autobiographical to mean “autobiographical fictional autobiography” (which is, incidentally, tautological, no?) on some level, but the latter phrase is clumsy and impractical. As for “referential” autobiography, referential to what? The author’s life? The word “autobiography” tells us that already. (Do you mean referential novel?)
No, for my purposes, “semi-autiobiographical” will do nicely. But thanks for the comment.
Thank u for the explication . I liked the word semi autobiographical, I have never heard about it.
a lot of writers pretend having no relation with the heros of their novels, which is in many cases just a lie.
keep up your gtood work
Thank you!
I think it’s worth mentioning that on some level at least, as you seem to have guessed, every novel has an autobiographical element to it. By the very nature of the novel it’s impossible (or I’ve always found it to be so) not to imbue one’s characters with aspects of oneself. That’s how convincing characters are created. The author uses personal experience and projects it into quite often alien scenarios. In most of my work you would, if you knew me, probably not be able to identify any aspect of my life beyond the trivial similarities. But I’m there, believe me. To one degree or another in every character I’ve ever written.