A Conversation with Lauren Winner, Part 2

By Mary Kenagy Mitchell
Continued from yesterday.

This post originally appeared as a web-exclusive feature accompanying Image issue 84.

Each chapter of Lauren F. Winner’s book, Wearing God: Clothing, Laughter, Fire, and Other Overlooked Ways of Meeting God (HarperOne), explores a single biblical image of God through a mix of exegesis, cultural history, and personal essay. I asked Winner about her new book, her love of history, her punctuation, and the politics of writing about the Bible.

Mary Kenagy Mitchell for Image: Could you talk about what you think makes a good history book, the kind you like to read?

Lauren Winner: I’m interested in histories of daily life, of ordinary people, and less in the history of ideas. Though even as I say that, I see a false dichotomy.

I have just read an amazing study of women in nineteenth-century southern households, Thavolia Glymph’s Out of the House of Bondage. There, the history of daily life is absolutely inseparable from politics, from ideas about (as well as practices of) slavery, freedom, and power. As Glymph puts it, to talk about freedom in the postbellum south is to talk about wages and political participation, but it is also to talk about:

Virginia Newman’s idea of freedom: “a blue guinea with yaler spots.” This was Newman’s first “bought dress,” and it represented, for her, control over her “whole life” and, concomitantly, the diminished control white people had over it.

There you have it: state power, consumerism, ideas, and what I’ve unhelpfully glossed “daily life” all rolled into one—and rolled into one in such a way as to diagnose the political work that my own depoliticizing language of “daily life” actually does. I am interested in books that draw, or expose, connections between the daily and the political, the kitchen and the state, the object and the idea. [Read more…]

A Conversation with Lauren Winner, Part 1

By Mary Kenagy Mitchell
This post originally appeared as a web-exclusive feature accompanying Image issue 84.

Each chapter of Lauren F. Winner’s book, Wearing God: Clothing, Laughter, Fire, and Other Overlooked Ways of Meeting God (HarperOne), explores a single biblical image of God through a mix of exegesis, cultural history, and personal essay. The chapter excerpted in issue 84 is about bread. I asked Winner about her new book, her love of history, her punctuation, and the politics of writing about the Bible.

Mary Kenagy Mitchell for Image: Your new book is about overlooked images of God in the Bible. I imagine there were some images you found that didn’t make it in. Could you talk about some of those?

Lauren Winner: In the scriptures there are a lot of animal and nature images for God—water and rock and so on. I’m especially interested in two from Hosea: there God is likened to dew, and to a tree. I’ve spent time with the tree image, thinking about what trees are, and I have a nascent spiritual practice of tree gazing, where I regularly stare at a magnolia in my yard as a practice of attentiveness.

I love the song “Jesus Christ the Apple Tree.” It’s not widely known, but it’s wonderful. It’s sung mostly in English churches, or at lessons and carols services at Christmas. I had it sung at my ordination, and I make groups of people sing it whenever possible: [Read more…]

An Interview with George Saunders, Part 2

old black and white film photo of an old brick building to the right of the frame. small people in white stand in front of it. a large tree hangs over the top left half of the frame. Beloved fiction writer George Saunders just published his first novel, Lincoln in the Bardo, an unconventional work of historical fiction about the moment when Abraham Lincoln was embroiled in the Civil War and lost his son Willie to typhoid fever.

I recently spoke to George Saunders on the phone from his home in California about his novel of voices, the Tibetan concept of the Bardo, and how he drew on classic ghost story tropes to create his distinctive spirit characters.

Part 1 of our conversation ran yesterday.

Jenny Shank: In your book the Reverend Everly Thomas learns he’s going to be damned, and he can’t figure out what he did wrong. I’m still puzzling over this. What does it signify? The unfairness of life? Or the fact that we can’t truly know what the consequences of our actions are?

George Saunders: I don’t know what he did, and the idea is he doesn’t either.

In this bardo state, you’re constantly repeating your story and you’re desperately trying to stay there. You become less than you were in life.

You know how sometimes certain old people are hooked on two or three stories in their life and they repetitively tell them? And in the process they forget the other stuff that they did. These ghosts are kind of like that.

I think the Reverend has told these stories so much and he’s been in this place so long that he actually can’t remember whole swaths of his life, including what he did wrong. Built into that is also the notion that maybe we don’t know what the basis for judgment is. In some ways it would be kind of weird if we did.

The story sometimes writes you into a corner. I knew that I didn’t want to say, “Oh, he stole.” Then it would be like you’re playing God in a funny way. So I wanted it to be me not knowing, you not knowing, and him not knowing. So that would imply that there could be a very unpredictable God and also that the Reverend is not in a state to remember stuff.

Right before the Reverend decides to run off with Willie’s body, there is a moment where he thinks, “Whatever I did in life, I did it, and I’m damned for it, but I have to believe that God is still watching me and will credit even the slightest good intention.”

That’s my assumption about most things. If I go to the coffee shop and have a nice interaction with the barista, I don’t know what that does for world peace, but we have to assume that in the great basket of goodness maybe that’s one little micron or one little neutron that you’ve put in there.

That’s the only way that I can figure out how to live, is to say, “Well, I don’t know what this adds up to, but I can do the best I can.”

J.S.: The ghosts are fun. How did you come up with the characters and how did you decide to give them strange ailments?

G.S.: For me, when I’m coming up to a place where I have to make somebody up, it’s almost like driving and taking your hands off the wheel.

I’ve been in this book for a while, and I know what this moment is, so let me just yield control to the subconscious. That means for me to just start typing, almost like trying to do improv, let the person start yapping, knowing that you’ll revise it later. In that way, they’ll cough up something that you need.

Rather than say, I need this kind of character, so let me research them, it’s more like running into the room and letting the character talk.

Vollman and Bevins were walking, and you feel that they should be looking at stuff. That image of a big pile of animals came to my mind. Then you go, there’s a guy sitting by a big pile of animals, why would he be there?

It’s more intuitive than I would have believed, just dwelling in the moment and seeing what your subconscious comes up with.

The deformities thing, that’s a ghost trope also. There are lots of places where ghosts have weird things. Earlier versions of the novel were not very funny, and I knew it would get sad, and we would need some comic levity. That was a way of making it funny, to have the Reverend with his hair sticking up and Vollman with his huge member.

It’s almost like riding a bike. If the bike is lurching too far over to the sadness, you have to put something in to change it. So once you decide to do that, you’ve got to stick with it, so you’ve got to make sure either everybody has some kind of manifestation, or if they don’t then there’s a reason for that.

J.S. It was a sign that the rules are different, and that we’re not quite sure what the rules are.

G.S.: Part of the fun was to say, whatever happens when we die, it would be really weird if it was what we had expected. Even if you were a lifelong Christian believer, it would be kind of weird if there actually were pearly gates.

There might be pearly gates, but based even on our experience on Earth, when you say, “Oh, I’m going to Tampa,” and you go there and it’s not what you thought, ever.

Part of the book was to build that in a comic way—we all think we know what happens after death. But maybe it’s going to be not only weird but also dorky and comic and inconsistent. Any time that world started to make too much literal sense, I tried to throw a little curve ball so the reader would feel like “I don’t really know what the rules are.” That was part of the plan.

J.S.: I took a writing class with you where you said that often you can figure out the problems with a piece of writing that isn’t working by going down into the sentence level and figuring out which sentences are false, or bullying, or BS, and working through those, and that in turn will solve your larger problems with character or plot.

I’ve always been a fan of Abraham Lincoln’s writing. He always strikes me as someone who left no detectable BS in his writing on a sentence level—which is something I don’t think I can say for any other politician whose words I’ve studied!

Did Lincoln appeal to you as a writer?

G.S.: Yes, very much.

Once I realized I was going to have to somehow represent Lincoln, I read speeches that he had written. People who’ve written about his writing emphasize how logical he was. His writing was a syllogistic tool. He would say, if A, then B, and he would reason through it. His late writing especially is so tight and so beautifully reasoned.

I tried to think well, okay he wrote those things, he revised those things, so what would that way of thinking look like raw, in his head? In his speeches, he’s logical and he works with things in an efficient way. I felt like if Lincoln was to write a speech based on those monologues [in the novel] it would be much tighter. But he’s sitting there in a graveyard, and that’s how he’s thinking.

I read an article by John McPhee in the New Yorker about omission. He mentioned that when Time magazine was in the pre-digital days, the process involved that the writer, having edited heavily, at the eleventh hour would get some feedback from the editor, and this process was called “greening.” The editor would be like, “Just to fit it on the page, we have to cut X number of words.” They would make suggestions in green pen.

This was already a tightly edited piece that they would be happy to run just as it is, but for space reasons they had to shrink it. He said this is a great thing to try. Take any piece of writing that you’ve done or somebody else has done and say, arbitrarily, green ten, which means you’ve got to cut ten words. Somebody claimed you could green the Gettysburg Address by six, but if you did seven words you’d ruin it.

That’s kind of a test of a piece of prose, if you can green it.

J.S.: This novel is all written in dialogue. Why did you decide to do that, and what were the challenges of writing only in dialogue?

G.S.: I was trying to avoid that kind of third person voice, you know: “On a dark night Abraham Lincoln entered the graveyard.” That just made me cringe. I didn’t want to do that.

Many years ago I wrote another book set in a graveyard, that had this device almost like a chat line, the dead were kind of talking to and past each other. That was real jangly, I really liked the way that felt. It gave you a lot of freedom to represent contradictory viewpoints. And it just looked good on the page.

At some critical moment, I was talking to Deborah Treisman from the New Yorker about this material. I’d written a play that wasn’t that good. She said, “But why don’t you write it as a novel?” I respect her so much that her saying that turned on this permission light in my head. Within a few weeks, one of my students, Adam Levin, said in an email, “if you ever wrote a novel, I think it would be in a series of monologues.”

You could just do it by having people talk, and then you could avoid using the word “ghost,” which I didn’t want to do, because then you’d see a guy in a sheet. In a way it was a technique of avoiding the banal stuff I didn’t want to do. Sometimes you put it up on its feet and you go, that little move was really kind of fun. This lets me come in from this side angle and get more feeling out of it.

It plays into something I believe, which is, when I was there with you guys at Lighthouse in Denver, and there were a hundred people in the room, at some level you think, what’s really going on here is there are 100 different minds firing full speed, and this one is thinking about the fact that her socks don’t fit right and this one is listening and this one is listening and disagreeing.

If you really wanted a God’s eye view of that gathering it would be a hundred simultaneous inner monologues. Monologues, in some ways, are the most scientific descriptions of consciousness and even of gatherings.

You go to the marketplace and there are seventeen consciousnesses moving in and out. Sometimes you want the same shirt that I want, and our thought bubbles collide a bit and that makes plot.

It’s the most honest way to represent human beings.

GL banner

Jenny Shank’s stories, essays, satire and reviews have appeared in The Atlantic, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, McSweeney’s, Prairie Schooner, and Image. Her first novel, The Ringer, won the High Plains Book Award. She’s on the faculty of the Mile High MFA at Regis University in Denver.

An Interview with George Saunders, Part 1

Photo of George Saunders in b&w looking at the camera. He has a gentle expression on his face, but his eye contact is direct. His hair is balding a bit with a tuft on top of his head. He's wearing dark, thick rimmed rectangular glasses, a dark jacket, and a pattern shirt underneath.Beloved fiction writer George Saunders has long been known for his daring short stories, collected most recently in 2013’s Story Prize-winning Tenth of December, and his keen interest in moral introspection, highlighted by his much-shared commencement speech for 2013 Syracuse University graduates about the importance of kindness.

Saunders just published his first novel, Lincoln in the Bardo, an unconventional work of historical fiction about the moment when Abraham Lincoln was embroiled in the Civil War and lost his son Willie to typhoid fever.

I recently spoke to George Saunders on the phone from his home in California about his novel of voices, the Tibetan concept of the Bardo, and how he drew on classic ghost story tropes to create his distinctive spirit characters.

Jenny Shank: You create a chorus of voices in the commentaries about Lincoln that are taken from historical sources. Did the feeling of these contrary voices inspire the fictional characters you created, or was it the other way around?

George Saunders: It was both. It was like a feedback loop. You’d write a ghost section in which there was a certain rhythm in those exchanges, and that rhythm would be in your head the next time you went to arrange the real sources. And vice versa. You’d get a certain kind of velocity in those factual sections that would make a high bar for the ghost sections.

There was a big breakthrough one day where I was trying to figure out where to put the attributions—because you could put them at the beginning or the end. If you put them at the end, then the ghost speeches are at first glance indistinguishable from the factual ones. I liked that there would be one rule for all of them.

This book isn’t actually that long, so you could always be rewriting all of it. If at the end of the book I had a certain tone, I might find myself revising an earlier section in that spirit.

J.S.: Did you consider it a risk to make a good portion of your book out of other people’s words?

G.S.: Yes. I remember thinking, this isn’t writing, this is typing! But I really wanted to communicate some of that emotion of that image of Lincoln holding Willie’s body. [Read more…]

A Conversation with Scott Derrickson, Part 2

benedict-cumberbatch-on-set-of-doctor-strange-by-prishank-thapa-on-flickrContinued from yesterday.

Scott Derrickson is a director whose films include The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Sinister, and Deliver Us From Evil. His most recent film, Marvel’s Doctor Strange, is in theaters now. I had the chance to chat with Scott for Christianity Today in the summer of 2014, when news had just broke that he was Marvel’s choice. In this conversation, he was even more generous with his time and engaging in conversation as I found him to be two years ago. Scott will direct the Film Seminar at Image’s Glen Workshop in Santa Fe this summer.

Nick Olson: You said recently that, for you, creation is motivated more by discovery than self-expression. What were the memorable discoveries in the making of Doctor Strange?

Scott Derrickson: I discovered more than I could ever put into words in a single interview. Both specific things about my personal life and my relationships and ideological things. The movie certainly took a turn into moral questions that I wasn’t anticipating. Pretty quickly, I ran into some big fundamental questions about the nature of moral structure itself.

I studied philosophy as an undergraduate student and so I’ve always been interested in moral questions. Also, I identify myself as Christian, even though that means different things to different people. But the idea of morality not being as fixed as we think it is ended up becoming more significant as we worked on the script while shooting and during post-production.

I like the fact that the movie presents certain moral conundrums for which there are no easy answers because that’s how it often goes in life, and sometimes the only answer is to choose the lesser evil or choose what seems to be the best possible choice at the best possible time, even though it goes against conventional morality or what feels like universal moral law. [Read more…]