Authors on Writing: Metaphors and Intellectual Labor

Amazon.com: Authors on Writing: Metaphors and Intellectual Labor (9781403948953): Barbara Tomlinson

Authors on Writing: Metaphors and Intellectual Labor

Close Window

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/140394895X/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books5/9/2011 9:28:48 PM

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authors on Writing

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

Authors on Writing Barbara Tomlinson University of California, San Diego

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphors and Intellectual Labor

© Barbara Tomlinson 2005

No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2005 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–4895–3 hardback ISBN-10: 1–4039–4895–X hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tomlinson, Barbara, 1946– Authors on writing: metaphors and intellectual labor/ Barbara Tomlinson. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–4039–4895–X 1. Authorship. I. Title. PN145.T65 2005 808’.02–dc22

10 14

9 13

8 12

7 11

2004057525

6 10

5 09

4 08

3 07

2 06

1 05

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

Acknowledgments Chapter 1 Part I

Introduction

1

Metaphor and Cultures of Composing

Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Part II

vi

Composing and Metaphoricity Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models Metaphorics of Embodied Labor Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality

9 32 51 72

The Apparatus of Authorship

Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8

Authorship and Intellectual Labor Authorship in an Economy of Promotion Writing in Earthquake Country

97 113 125

Appendix: Sources, Selection, Classification of Metaphors

132

Notes

135

Critical References

169

Interview References

179

Index

221

v

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Contents

Thanks to colleagues and students at the University of California, San Diego who have offered useful comments and criticisms including Evan Adelson, Linda Brodkey, Betty Cain, Lori Chamberlain, Aaron Cicourel, Stephen Cox, Charles R. Cooper, Edwin Fussell, Brent Gowan, Eugene Holland, David Keevil, Hugh B. Mehan, Bill McKnight, Ken Mendoza, Louis A. Montrose, Peter Mortensen, Brooke Neilsen, Richard Terdiman, Don E. Wayne. I have also learned a great deal from colleagues in the profession on other campuses including Nancy Armstrong, Rise Axelrod, Steve Axelrod, Carol Berkenkotter, Peter Elbow, Linda Flower, Ann Matsuhashi Feldman, Sheryl I. Fontaine, Sarah Freedman, Paul Gordon, Robert Hanneman, John R. Hayes, Shirley Brice Heath, Mark Johnson, George Lakoff, Bruno Latour, Donald McQuade, Donald M. Murray, Jan Radway, Helen Rivera, Mike Rose, Rusty Russell, Jane Tompkins. Thanks to the composition group at the University of Minnesota that made me welcome as a visitor and as the first Fellow of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Writing; it was a quarter when I got an amazing amount of work done: Chris Anson, Robert L. Brown, Jr. Geoffrey Sirc, Donald Ross, and Lillian Bridwell-Bowles. A special thanks for inviting me in and giving careful readings and comments to my Friday Morning Reading/Writing Group: Sara Evans, Amy Kaminsky, Elaine Tyler May, Riv-Ellen Prell, and Cheri Register; and also to Hildy Miller. Particular thanks for the late stage contributions of Jennifer Diamond of UCSD and an exceptional reader for Palgrave. The people whose hard work has helped make the Muir College Writing Program succeed include Maria Arande, Michele Bigos, Caron Coke, Cynthia Dupray, Barbara Eyer, Patrick Gleason, Nancy Hesketh, Liza Kamps, Pat Ledden, Barbara Mauro, Douglas McCannel, Lorie Newman, Eliza Segura, and Linda Vo and Carrie Wastal. Thanks for sharing the years of intellectual labor to George Lipsitz, Kerry Tomlinson, Matthew Tomlinson, Lisa Choy Tomlinson, and now Rebecca Leigh, Emily Rae, and Kevin James Tomlinson. I would like to thank Masha Zakheim for permission to use Bernard Zakheim’s Coit Tower mural Library (1934) for the cover. I would also like to express my appreciation to New England Publishers Association for permission to quote from Packard, William, ed. The Craft of Poetry: vi

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Acknowledgments

Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. I would also like to thank those who provided permission to reprint essays of my own that I have revised to incorporate into the book. To Tom Waldrep for permission to use “On Earthquakes, Lost Wax, and Woody Allen: Composing Composing,” Writers on Writing. Vol. II. Ed. T. Waldrep. New York: Random House, 1987. 205–211. To Sage Publishers for permission to use “Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts: Metaphors for Revision,” Written Communication 5.1 (1988): 58–81, and “Characters are Co-Authors: Segmenting the Self, Integrating the Composing Process,” Written Communication 4.3 (1986): 421–448. To Erlbaum for permission to use “Cooking, Mining, Gardening, Hunting: Metaphorical Stories Writers Tell About Their Composing Processes,” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1.1 (1986): 57–79.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Acknowledgments vii

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

1

In this book I provide new ways of exploring a very old topic—the activities of writing and what authors say about them. Drawing on published interviews with writers, I explore the discursive and cultural practices that shape writing as both an individual activity and a collective practice. As narrative acts performed in public, interviews with published authors constitute critical evidence about the cultures of writing that shape us and that we help shape. In the pages that follow, I argue that serious and sustained analysis of figurative language about composing by authors in literary interviews enables us to understand writing as work, as a shared social practice, as an activity with both critical and creative dimensions. Analysis and interpretation of authors’ interviews shifts focus from the idealized humanist subject often enshrined in discourses about creation and criticism since the Enlightenment to the struggles of actual human individuals attempting to forge new subjectivities, subject positions, social identities, and social relations. Interviews allow us to see that something new happens through conversation, that interviews help writers and readers recognize and realize the trans-individual dimensions of activities conducted in solitude. In Part I, Metaphor and the Cultures of Composing, I argue that critical engagement with the metaphors that writers draw on in discussing their writing acts can help us locate our critical, creative, and interpretive practices in the historical matrices that give them meaning. By reading author interviews diagnostically and symptomatically, we discover the trans-individual and inter-textual dimensions of writing—the ways in which the words we write always echo, answer, amplify, and occlude words written by others, how a collective metanarrative about composition and authorship influences our efforts whether we know it 1

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Introduction

or not. Perhaps most important, employing metaphor-reading as a critical method teaches us that words are more than tools and that writing is more than a technology. My investigation highlights the importance of metaphor in composing as well as the connections that link the teaching of writing to collective, historically specific, and socially shared narratives and metanarratives about originality and creativity. In Part II, The Apparatus of Authorship, I explore how mechanisms of publicity and promotion produce the genre of author interviews and permeate its constructions of authorship. Interest in authorial subjectivity and even celebrity has been a long-standing aspect of cultural life as well as an occasional aspect of scholarly inquiry. It is related to larger cultural interest in representations of imagination and invention by all kinds of creative people, including artists, musicians, and scientists. My inquiry examines how conversations between interviewers and authors reveal socially shared understandings of what writing is and how it gets done. When writers converse about their composing practices, they recover and reconsider aspects of their artistry that may have eluded conscious recognition. Author interviews thus restore a temporal dimension and teleology to the seemingly timeless quality of literature as authors return to previous projects in order to plan new ones. The ways that authors discuss their composing, particularly their metaphors, help authors, readers, and critics recuperate what Gertrude Stein called “the time of the composition and the time in the composition” (1962, p. 516). They remind us that the finished work of art has a history, and that the unfinished draft has a future. A dominant cultural metanarrative that I have called the Buried Life of the Mind tends to govern discussions of composing in Western culture. This metanarrative implies that writing emerges from deep within a heroic self. Such a metanarrative of writing encourages us to focus attention on the special selfhood of the heroic author and its teeming buried life, rather than the embodied labor and the social nature of composing. Whatever their utility for moral education and inspiration, images of heroic authors severely limit our understanding of how writing actually takes place. These stories focus our attention on cultural products worthy of admiration, rather than on the complex cultural processes that produce them. They segregate literary authorship from other kinds of textual production. As Raymond Williams argues, relegating writing exclusively to the sphere of art “is to lose contact with the substantive creative process and then to idealize it; to put it above or below the social, when it is in fact the social in one of its most distinctive, durable, and total forms” (Williams, 1977, p. 212, emphasis added).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

2 Authors on Writing

Roland Barthes argued popular “profiles” of authors in newspapers and magazines serve exactly to hide intellectual labor: “Thus the function of the man of letters is to human labor rather as ambrosia is to bread: a miraculous, eternal substance, which condescends to social form so that its prestigious difference is better grasped” (1972, p. 30). I argue that there is much evidence from authors’ metaphorical stories about writing to alter the cultural view that Barthes challenges, to see the intellectual labor of authorship differently. Part I, “Metaphors and Cultures of Composing,” includes four chapters introducing and analyzing a range of writers’ figurative language about the events and acts of their writing, figures drawn from published literary interviews. In Chapter 2, “Composing and Metaphoricity,” I argue that metaphorical stories about writing acts and events are part of apparatuses of social production of both authorship and of composing. I introduce Matthew Arnold’s poem “The Buried Life of the Mind” as a touchstone to develop my argument that the buried life functions as a metanarrative for composing and to discuss the problems presented by overemphasis on it and related metaphors of inspiration and illumination that make composing a site of inspiration, mystery, interiority, and alterity. The argument of Chapter 2 provides tools to reposition metaphors that might otherwise be seen as emblematic of interiority and alterity. In Chapter 3, “Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models,” I consider the kinds of multiple “truths” that emerge from examining how writers’ figurative language about their writing processes can “model” composing. I also discuss these metaphorical models in the light of several other ways of looking at writing. I argue that sustained study of writers’ metaphors about writing processes reveals the existence of a meta-narrative community among writers and in the general culture. Interpreting its role in literary interviews might enable us to supplement, revive, or even replace the epistemological tools lost to writers, readers, and teachers because of society’s celebration and mystification of authorship. We need to learn how to read other writers on writing, to bring the critical and the creative in dialogue with one another, to restore the centrality of the social to studies of cognition and communication, and to promote metaphorical analysis as a critical method. In Chapter 3 I also introduce a conversational, contingent, and comparative approach to metaphor-reading adapted from the arguments of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson and of Donald Schon In Chapters 4 and 5 I focus on two strands of significant alternative narratives, the metaphorics of embodied labor and discursive sociality.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Introduction 3

Chapter 4, “Metaphorics of Embodied Labor,” situates writing as an embodied activity. I then analyze Writing is Mining, a story of labor that appear to have close ties to the buried life metanarrative, yet demonstrates significant differences. I go on to examine a variety of metaphors that connect intellectual labor with other kinds of labor, particularly metaphors of revision. Chapter 5, “Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality,” analyzes major metaphors that dramatically emphasize the role of social voices in intellectual labor. These stories describe texts and fictional characters as living beings whose concerns must be negotiated to complete one’s writing tasks. Chapters 4 and 5 draw on typologies that organize metaphors by their shared characteristics, grouping together metaphors that liken writing to traversing time and space, that depict composing as similar to craft labor, that imagine both texts and fictional characters coming to life as if they were co-authors. My intent, however, goes beyond mere description. Once we have grouped these metaphors into categories, we can turn to examining how they may shape notions of writing. The importance of analyzing the full range of author’s metaphorical stories about composing is to modify, if not overturn, the dominant metanarrative of the buried life. The metaphors of Chapters 4 and 5 reveal that many different kinds of labor, cognition, and communication go into writing. They direct our attention to micro-social practices and processes that help us understand that successful writing entails many minor but arduous tasks. Precisely because writing and revising require actions too small to support heroic narratives—revising sentences, re-arranging paragraphs, changing punctuation, looking up the meaning of words, adjusting the rhythm of phrases and the pace of paragraphs, lengthening or shortening chapters that previously seemed to be completed—they generally remain hidden from view, therefore mystifying the processes of writing and allowing both advanced and beginning writers to believe that no one else has to struggle with writing in quite the way we do. Part II, “The Apparatus of Authorship,” presents two chapters on the literary interview as part of an apparatus of publication that creates rather than merely reflects “authorship.” In Chapter 6, “Authorship and Intellectual Labor,” I discuss conceptions of authorship that influence literary interviews, as well as the literary interview as a genre and discursive site for the production of images of intellectual labor. In Chapter 7, “Authorship in an Economy of Promotion,” I discuss how the interview functions within a promotional context of capitalism.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

4 Authors on Writing

The subject of The Buried Life of the Mind, then, is neither metaphor nor composing per se, but the discourse and discursive context of cultural conceptions of composing. The book brings together critical and creative discourses to examine how authors present their writing as intellectual labor during literary interviews and how these interviews function as part of the apparatus of contemporary authorship. It argues that when properly interpreted, the things authors say about composing processes can tell us a great deal—about them and about us, about the cultures of commerce and creativity in our society, about the assumptions, understandings, and aspirations that make writing a shared social practice as well as an individual art.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Introduction 5

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

Metaphor and Cultures of Composing

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Part I

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

2

Figurative descriptions or “metaphorical stories” of composing are ubiquitous in interviews with professional writers. Writers explain themselves as building, battling, or giving birth; their texts as flowing, growing, or coming alive; their minds as razors, reservoirs, or compost heaps. They position their writing as cooking, painting, rock-climbing. They present themselves as vehicles, listeners, actors, manipulators, manufacturers, masters. Their characters and their texts become active, even recalcitrant, co-authors. Figurative themes and metaphorical stories about composing acts bring writing down to earth, not only reflecting, but also constituting extant concepts of composing as authors’ interviews repeatedly reference actual life activities. These figurative commentaries about writing activities are by no means isolated or unique, but are part of a wide network of representations that are also connected to discussions of creativity in science, painting, and other fields. Borrowing from one another and from widely shared social tropes, authors’ metaphorical stories contribute to the sense that there is some set of activities, ways of thinking, and ways of being that Western culture has come to term a “creative process.” Although they may be attempting to capture their experiences as writers, interview respondents unconsciously re-create or instantiate a notion of the writing process based on shared social language about authorship and composing. Precisely because we have been taught for so long to think about writing as little more than an inspired presentation of an already coherent inner self, writers have difficulty representing the labor that goes into writing, the many tasks that it entails, or the identities it asks us to assume. Writing is a social institution created over time. The cumulative discourses about it shape our understanding of what we are 9

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity

supposed to do when we write, and how we see ourselves as writers. Our “interior selves” are not so much displayed in our writing as they are constituted by it. We are not fully intact and formed subjects who write to make our inner selves visible: rather the discourses surrounding writing help construct our inner and outer selves by “hailing” us and inviting us to take on identities as writers. Yet most of the ways we are constituted by writing remain invisible to us because cultural emphases on interiority and inspiration occlude the practical social labor that we do, as well as the ideological consequences of that labor. Although the writing process is shaped by shared social understandings, dominate cultural metanarratives tell us to think of and even to experience our processes as purely personal and individual. By performing the discourse of a writer as imaged in our culture, we become what we think a writer is, we internalize a series of expectations, norms, and behaviors that we have learned from others. Yet we imagine that the writers we become were inside us all along. We cannot see our identities as writers as the product of a shared social process precisely because that social process is so powerful and pervasive we come to believe that it originated inside ourselves. The things that are closest to home can be the things hardest to see. When New York Times film critic Bosley Crowther reviewed the opening of Howard Hawks’ 1947 western film Red River, he hailed the motion picture as a breakthrough, as a western film that was just plain fun and that had no adult “message” or ideology to communicate. Yet ideology permeates Red River, a cinematic ode to private property, patriarchal power, and imperial expansion intended as an allegory to justify the Cold War from the U.S. perspective. Because the film’s ideology corresponded completely to Crowder’s ideology, he thought it had no ideology at all. This is the problem we face when we try to understand the social labor, social identities, and social ideologies sedimented within metaphors describing writing processes. They are so powerful and pervasive that they do not appear to be there at all. They are what is taken for granted, what goes without saying. * In their retrospective accounts of their writing practices, published writers say what goes without saying. Reading their richly textured and intricately detailed metaphors critically enables us to think about the way that metaphorical stories about writing hide from sight or obscure social practice. Louis Althusser (1971) offers a generative argument

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

10 Authors on Writing

about the importance of studying this kind of practical activity in order to produce what he describes as “descriptive theory.” From his perspective, concrete individuals become constituted as “subjects” through ideology, but the most powerful ideological influences do not come to us in the form of ideological pronouncements. That would make them visible, controversial, and refutable. Instead, Althusser argues that the most powerful ideologies exist in “apparatuses,” in practices, and that these practices are always material. Althusser’s interest is in apparatuses of the state; he uses the metaphors “infrastructure” and “superstructure” to stand in for the state, so we can see how and what the state does. My interest here is in the trope of the author embedded in the apparatuses of cultural production. Descriptive (ideographic) metaphors about the events and acts of writing can lead us to theoretical (nomothetic) generalizations by revealing the “how” and the “what” of writing. Writing processes are social practices, and their materiality becomes visible most usefully through the descriptive theory of writing that we can create through critical examination of writers’ metaphors about their composing activities. Yet in order to explain what writing is, we need to examine how it has been explained traditionally. Probing the dynamics and origins of composition has long been related to efforts to discern core truths about human creativity, selfhood and subjectivity. A passion to understand how and from where thought arises and a corresponding fascination with the origins of writing have been central to many kinds of philosophical, empirical, and literary studies. These inquiries encourage us to seek one hidden “truth” about writing, rather than to analyze available but competing truths. The enormous value that the Western tradition assigns to elite authors, texts, and processes positions them in exaggerated terms: either as comprehensive and universal, or as mysterious and particular. In either case, what one expects to find “buried” in authors is truth of mind and method. But inquiries focused on defining such truths categorize writing subjects in ways that are antithetical to understanding actual practices of writing. I argue in Part I of this book that interviewed writers reveal multiple truths about composing processes, but that we cannot always hear them because we shape our comprehension to a singular conception: the buried life of the mind. In this chapter I sketch out a schematic version of the argument in Part I. I first examine Matthew Arnold’s poem “The Buried Life of the Mind” as a representative of this metanarrative of desire for deep and hidden knowledges of the human mind. I then argue that the demands for pre-existent singularity and

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 11

interiority that infuse the metanarrative of the buried life serve to limit our conceptions of writing processes. I go on to argue that the metanarrative is supported by an equally misleading emphasis on “creativemoment” metaphors of inspiration and illumination, but that we can overcome the limitations of this overemphasis if we examine cultural discourses about writing. Examining metaphorical stories about composing can help us refigure conceptions of writing processes to encompass authors’ rich multiplicity and references to labor and sociality in the face of the occlusions of the metanarrative. I also contend that the tensions created by our competing desires for generality and idiosyncrasy lead us to emphasize stories of the buried life and inspiration in the face of repeated emphasis by writers on plurality of practices as central to their writing processes. Because we look for metanarratives, we overlook micronarratives: we cannot hear authors’ claims for other more “multiple” ways of creating writing. * In the nineteenth century, Matthew Arnold used a metaphorical notion about the “buried life of the mind” to describe the origins of thinking and being. This metaphor appears frequently in the cultural lore surrounding creativity. The trope, which occludes as much as it reveals, has become our metanarrative about writing. While historically specific to his time, Arnold’s vision resonates with older traditions of thought about the “truth” of human intellect. According to Arnold’s poem “The Buried Life,” the powerful desire to understand the origins of the mind’s energies remains an inaccessible, fugitive ideal: But often, in the world’s most crowded streets, But often, in the din of strife, There rises an unspeakable desire After the knowledge of our buried life; A thirst to spend our fire and restless force In tracking out our true, original course; A longing to inquire Into the mystery of this heart which beats So wild, so deep in us–to know Whence our lives come and where they go. And many a man in his own breast then delves, But deep enough, alas! none ever mines. And we have been on many thousand lines,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

(45)

(50)

(55)

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

12 Authors on Writing

Composing and Metaphoricity 13

(60)

(65)

Arnold contrasts the buried life with the bustling public life of the modernizing city, a beleaguered conflicted political life. The buried life emerges in everyday life as an object of pure desire to know the “truth” of one’s nature, one’s genesis, one’s being in the world. Presented as inner, under, and within, this buried life always remains that thing which one can look for, long for, even lust for, but which can never be obtained or comprehended. The search may create eloquent articulations, but the truth of hidden feelings and understandings can never be known. It remains tantalizingly just beyond one’s grasp.1 Arnold’s “buried life” metaphor positions the mind in ways similar to ancient Greek tropes of truth as absent and inaccessible. Page duBois (1991) discusses the tendency in ancient Greek thought to situate truth in places seen as hidden, or “other.” Greek torture of slaves aimed, in part, to extract truth from the interiority of the slave’s body. Tropes that position truth in this way render ultimate knowledge unreachable and ungraspable. From this perspective, the “truth” rests precisely in that which is not known and not knowable. When applied to writing, this belief obscures the socially shared assumptions and practices that establish writing as a collective, cultural, and trans-individual activity. When contemporary scholars attend to metaphorical language about writing activities, they often focus on metaphors congruent with the buried life of the mind. They utilize what duBois describes as an “aristocratic” model of truth, available only to the few who can find it, comprehensible only through their grace. These metaphors invoke ideologies of the self as the fountain of individuality and creativity, though such ideologies have been contested in recent years in productive ways, especially by poststructuralist theories. They obscure competing models, like those duBois finds in fragments of the writings of Herakleitos where truth emerges from the play of difference, from struggle, change, and movement. The truth Herakleitos

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

‘And we have shown, on each, spirit and power; But hardly have we, for one little hour, Been on our own line, have we been ourselves – Hardly had skill to utter one of all The nameless feelings that course through our breast, But they course on forever unexpressed. And long we try in vain to speak and act Our hidden self, and what we say and do Is eloquent, is well–but ’tis not true! (1979, pp. 289–290)

suggests brackets the issues of underlying unity in order to emphasize particularity in the universe (1991, pp. 97–98). Extending duBois’s argument, social investments in thinking about truth as an unknowable, mysterious, unitary process may rest exactly on its elusive status, its ability to exceed grasp and comprehension. Similarly, metaphors that present writing as received from external and even divine sources position truth and creativity as mystical and unknowable. Well-known metaphors about muses and lightening bolts that deliver truth from “somewhere else” discourage us from looking at the practical work, social networks, and communicative acts that inform and enable our writing. Such metaphors obscure their dependence on a dichotomy between mystery and labor that denigrates labor in order to valorize mystery. Yet the resort to mystery is no mystery. Helen Sword (1995) points out that historically specific reasons lead contemporary individuals to cloak themselves in pre-modern practices and beliefs. Important strains within the culture of modernism, leading from Arnold through Eliot to Frye and Bloom, aestheticize disenchantment, establishing art as a compensatory realm that soothes the wounds of spiritual and social alienation. The fact that modernist thinkers steep their work in irony about muses, deities, and other-worldly forces reflects their longing to escape the everyday by attaching themselves to the transcendent or the deep—to the true, the good, the beautiful, and the universal. Yet such grandiose hopes and escapist fantasies only serve to exacerbate disenchantment with the quotidian, the social, and the experiential. The words we share bear a direct relationship to the worlds we share. duBois notes what is at stake in the selection of one metaphor rather than another. In her discussion of Herakleitos she argues that his attentiveness to time, change, and process prefigured the values of democracy. Rather than canonizing truth as eternal and unknowable, she finds Herakleitos to celebrate mutuality, interdependence, observation, and experience (duBois, 1991, p. 98). The mutability and mutuality that duBois recognizes in Herakleitos remain relevant to democratic hopes and aspirations today, no less than they did in antiquity. Appeals to the hidden depths of the buried life of the mind, however, function to depict qualities as already within individuals rather than developed in social arenas. When the interiority of the writing subject holds center stage, accounts about writing processes hinge on their potential authenticity as representations of unique subjectivities. Although putatively eternal and universal, this interiority rests on widespread notions of the self

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

14 Authors on Writing

that are themselves historically specific and ultimately metaphorical. The positing of a “pure” interiority has been facilitated since the Enlightenment by structures of self-surveillance encouraging the experience of the self as a “closed system,” characterized by “inner” and “outer” dimensions (Elias, 1991). According to Norbert Elias, “The social division between the individual and others is replicated internally as an immediately felt relation between an “interior,” nonmaterial individuality and its own body” (Ferguson, 2000, pp. 48–9). Elias objects to pervasive ways of positioning selves that frame the “inner” self as prior to social relations, as though nothing that is individual has been shaped by social life.2 Because we posit the individual mind of the writer within an encapsulated interior, we overlook the socially sedimented nature of discourse; we attribute to the author discourses that can exist, in fact, only because they are created by, reflect, and are connected to the discursive world of others. Thus we can see that Arnold’s “buried life” metaphor, as rearticulated in cultural lore about composing, reinstalls the myth of the solitary genius while eliding the possibility of shared cultural work. Studies of interiority and the buried life of the mind draw upon metaphors of “depth” for certain kinds of significance. Yet depth is something brought by interpretation to the scene, not something that precedes interpretation.3 Thinking of ascriptions of “depth” as rhetorical rather than ontological allows us to examine how they are used, and with what consequences.4 In his brilliant discussion of the cult of interiority among jazz critics, Robert Walser (1997) argues that notions positing a “deep” subjectivity in jazz depend upon conflating aesthetic complexity with psychological depth. His comments reveal some of the limitations of excessive focus on authorial subjectivity: … deep jazz thinking bestows depth upon the self; … [in doing so] some people’s cultural values are validated by being universalized, through means that circumvent evidence and forestall challenge. Arguments that some music is “deeper” than other music are useful in the social negotiation of value precisely because they blur the social construction of both subjectivities and aesthetic values. They amount to claims of special privilege, and it is because they are rarely recognized as such that they warrant criticism. To locate value “inside” something—whether a person, a tradition, or a recording— is to attempt to evade what is “outside”: history, culture, politics, contingency, contestation. Yet to evoke interiority is inevitably to argue about society, and it is precisely because the stakes of personal

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 15

16 Authors on Writing

Walser shows that discourses of interiority construct the self they purport to find, that our ideas about interiority are inevitably socially motivated and grounded. What is in question, then, is a method that presents the values of specific groups as universal, blurs the social construction of identities, imagines both the writing process and works of art as so disengaged that they would not be affected by even radical social change, elides the different meanings that literary texts may have for different people, and guarantees the worth of canonized literary texts by validating the integrity of the subjectivities of both the author and the critic while at the same time conflating them. The focus on authorial subjectivity reduces the complexity of the social and discursive world. It disguises the agency and social determination of authors, audiences, and critics, obscures cultural history, and, significantly for this inquiry, distracts us from the practices of intellectual labor by which texts are made. * The buried life of the mind is a dominant metanarrative about intellectual labor that mystifies it through a focus on interiority, but also, by its quest for the truth of an “other” life, by a focus on alterity. This focus on alterity is emphasized in related metaphors of what I call the “creative moment.” Creative-moment metaphors present sources of writing or writing events as mysterious, enigmatic, impenetrable, extraordinary, “other.” Inspiration stories depict writing as being possessed or otherwise surrendering control to unknown or outside forces; illumination stories present writing as prompted by sudden and unexpected insights. Though they do not share its spatial emphasis, these metaphors are deeply connected to the metanarrative of the buried life of the mind. They share its positioning of the author as a unique being who has that deep, extraordinary inner life, who undergoes special experiences that “release” glimpses of hidden truths. Inspiration and illumination metaphors are the most “iconic” stories of writing processes in both traditional and contemporary authorship.5 Popular conceptions of literary composing have focused on the author—particularly the poet—“inspired,” rushing to take down the “dictation” of the “muses.” But despite the popular references to inspiration, to “serving as vessels” and “receiving gifts” which dominate a

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

identity, historical memory, and artistic experience are so high that interiority is so public. (1997, p. 291)

cultural “at large” conception of writing processes, writing is on-going work or intellectual labor, and the great body of authors’ metaphors reflect that. Contrary to the assumptions embedded in the tropes of interiority and alterity, inspiration and illumination stories are not the predominant representation of composing activities used by contemporary interviewed authors. The predominant metaphorical representations of composing by writers are those found in Chapters 4 and 5: embodied labor and discursive sociality. These stories are vivid, interesting, and ubiquitous. But their importance to conceptions of composing has often been obscured by the cultural interest in the “otherness” of the mind. I argue that inspiration and illumination stories are iconic exactly because, at least momentarily, they pull composing out of a world of effort and social interaction. Creative-moment stories privileging inspiration and illumination, however powerful in themselves, obscure the small steps and shared social labor at the heart of composing. Because creative moment metaphors emphasize altered states of consciousness and moments of exhilaration, ease, and fluency, readers may not know or may not acknowledge that inspired moments are atypical writing occasions, that creative moment metaphors loom larger in the discourse of composing than such creative moments actually occur during process of writing. Yet creative-moment metaphors can tell us a great deal about cultures of writing and their continuing fascination with the buried life of the mind. Their popularity in the culture—which so exceeds their use by writers—demonstrates the continuing interest in positioning intellectual labor as not labor, and, to some degree, not intellectual (nonrational). Discussing the nineteenth-century popularity of anecdotes about authorial inspiration and sudden illumination, Timothy Clark argues, “The fascination of these episodes lies in their seductive status as modern versions of miracle. Glimpses of the creative process remain like brief visions of the promised land” (1997, p. 5).6 Without challenging any author’s experiences of inspiration and illumination, I want to position the stories so as to demonstrate that they are not diametrically opposed to the claims of embodied labor and discursive sociality that permeate metaphorical stories of writing. * Some of the best known inspiration stories, those frequently taken as dramatically representative of literary writing, are not generalized

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 17

18 Authors on Writing

Now I can say that about a half a dozen times in my life a poem has been given to me, rather than had I tried to invent it, or make it with the rational mind. It is as if it were a gift of the gods, and as if the personality of the poet were a [vane] upon which a wind, a spiritual wind blows, so that in a sense the whole being is used by the poem…. but I insist that in at least half a dozen cases in my life some of my best poems have been given to me. (1979 Cannito, p. 249) This passage by Eberhart contains several of the inspiration stories also used by other writers: claims of receiving a poem from a muse or other an unknown creator7 (sometimes it is from an unknown place8), claims of being merely a vessel for greater forces.9 Yet Eberhart clearly distinguishes this particular and rather dramatic method of writing from the ways in which he wrote the rest of his poems. The prominence of such metaphorical stories of “creative-moment” composing does not mean that they should be interpreted to be “the creative process” of poetry. The long history of invoking muses shapes how people receive these references in contemporary literary interviews. Invocations to divine sources historically constituted a part of the poem itself, a gesture of appreciation and desire. This religious background influenced invocations to the muses and deities in medieval and later poetry, as references to the “pagan” muses began to be dropped or replaced, particularly when Christian poets began to make such invocations.10 In contemporary interviews, the muses take their place among a variety of ways to discuss the emergence of literary texts. References are sometimes ironic; they are also full of qualifications and other rhetorical gestures. Further complications arise if one notes that most of those who make references to inspiration stories are poets. If one were to interpret these references as bearing specific religious content, one would have to presume that deities are particularly concerned with the production of poetry (good and bad) but less so with fiction and nonfiction writing, however beautiful, however significant, however religious. This seems unlikely. It is more likely that discursive

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

stories of how all writing gets done, but of how once in a while some writing gets done. For example, prominent in interviews with poet Richard Eberhart are “creative-moment” metaphors: poems that are inspired, “god-given,” “beyond rationality,” the poet “a vehicle for the utterance of the poem.” Reports Eberhart,

conventions encourage poets to expect the presence of muses, or at least to perform that expectation for their readers. Many modernist poets invoke prophetic inspiration, although sometimes to treat it ironically or specify its absence. Helen Sword (1995) examines how three representative modernists call on visionary tropes to define and manipulate an inspiring spirit of “otherworldliness” through their writing. Rilke does so through an inner female self. Lawrence confronts a dynamic but ill-tempered demon. H. D. searches for an oracle. Sword argues that we need to contrast claims about the experience of inspiration with the use of poetic rhetorics that have a “prophetic” feel. Following Frederick Clarke Prescott, Sword uses the term “primary inspiration” to refer to experiences that the author considers “visionary.” “Secondary” inspiration characterizes poetry with a style or rhetoric displaying a visionary stance. According to Sword, Primary inspiration … refers to real visions and real divine voices (and I have chosen to accept at face value poets’ claims to such experiences), while secondary inspiration applies to verse that merely imitates prophetic tropes. (1995, p. 5) Sword argues that most poetry deemed “prophetic” results from secondary inspiration. Metaphors of primary inspiration are just that— metaphors. With some exceptions (Rilke was one), poets speak like prophets, not as prophets. They draw on their talents as writers to construct a dramatic and memorable metaphor, but only rarely confuse the metaphor with the experience it purports to represent. Perhaps most important, Sword reminds us that the purpose of prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures was not to predict the future or to flaunt special communication with God, but rather to interpret the present by standing outside it, to offer “an exegesis of existence” (1995, p. 5). Following Sword, we can bracket any “actual” experiences of visionary states to examine instead how writers strategically draw on metaphorical stories about inspiration in their writing practices. Claiming divine inspiration endows an author with authority. In interviews, authors may posit privileged access to wisdom by minimizing their own agency and maximizing the agency of otherworldly sources. This concept of poetic inspiration follows an oxymoronic logic. The poet achieves power through powerlessness, maintaining an authoritative posture only through abjection. The apparent paradox rests on the assumption that writing can result from a pure, fully autonomous activity, independent of social sources. Yet the poet receiving dictation

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 19

from nature, deities, or muses is busy listening to and transcribing the dictation. This is activity. Even a claim to become “empty” or “passive” immediately prior to the moment of inspiration requires preparation. Part of what makes inspiration stories “iconic” is that they seem, like the buried life of the mind, to position the contemporary writer in a historical lineage of extraordinary human beings and experiences outside of changes in society. But, as Cherryl Armstrong argues, claims of poetic inspiration are not isolated from other social concerns, especially about how authors are positioned in society. She suggests that differences in how poets from different eras describe their composing may not reflect substantial differences in “actual” writing behavior so much as different attitudes toward writing poetry exhibited in different eras. Poets are most likely to speak publicly and probably even to think privately about that part of writing that is of greatest interest to their age. The Romantics were interested in nature as both a subject for writing and a source of inspiration, and the part of their experience to which they seem to have given most significance was inspired composing. This certainly does not mean that they did not labor over their drafts. Contemporary poets seem to see labored revision as the most significant aspect of writing, while, as we have seen, they experience inspired composing as well. (1985, p. 26) As Armstrong notes, the fact that poetic interviews involve questions about writing processes at all is “to assume that there is considerably more to poetic creation than inspiration” (p. 26). Armstrong also indicates that what is “received” during inspiration varies, and so cannot be seen as the same experience. She finds “inspiration” applied to the impulse to write, the subject for a poem, the first or germinal words of text, and the spontaneous composing of lines or verses (1985, p. 28). Moreover, claims of reception from “deities” may be strategic appeals. Poems from the gods imply a status superior to those attributed to unspecified or openly social sources. Like inspiration stories, illumination stories are often positioned as mysterious and thrilling because the experience they describe is exciting and seems to produce the results of effort without the actual expenditure of effort. Marguerite Yourcenar remarks that she was thrust back into her Memoirs of Hadrian when she came upon an early draft in a trunk: “a bolt out of the blue!” (1984, p. 113) This

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

20 Authors on Writing

metaphor expresses energy, unexpectedness, suddenness. But it does not necessarily imply instanteousness, as some readers might assume, nor does it imply an outside source. The metaphor of a bolt of lightning is worth considering in some detail to remind us that even literal lightning is the result of effort—a process with beginnings, middles, and ends. Bolts of lightning appear during a storm, when already established conditions make them possible. Lightning bolts develop temporally and in relation to one another. An electrical charge builds up through small collisions of low intensity. High-speed photography reveals several strokes in what appears to be one flash. Some strokes work their way downward from cloud to cloud, rather than immediately connecting source to ground. The brilliant flash that lightning bolts seem to contain is actually an upward discharge from the target to the source. A bolt of lightening stems from a charge of electricity that is not formed as a “trait” of the carrying cloud, but rather as a relationship “between cloud and ground below, or between cloud and cloud (i.e., a difference in electrical potential)” (see Gruber and Davis, 1988, p. 243). In other words, what makes the lightning bolt carry a charge and flash brilliantly is caused by its enabling processes. Without them it cannot exist. In writing, lightning bolts are formed similarly, by the relationships between ideas and language within the stormy connections of discourse. The conditions necessary for the brilliance of a bolt of lightning are remarkably similar to the network of relationships that are necessary for the moment of insight to take place during writing. Expectations of interviews demand explanations that are incomplete or not fully delineated, and that focus on the dramatic. Insights of various types are a regularly occurring feature of writing activity. They are not singular, and not always dramatic. Emphasis on sudden and dramatic insight does not reflect adequately the network of relationships established in on-going writing and thinking activities. Thus, authors’ perceptions of sudden insight are not an adequate representation of the entire writing process. The primary effect of the cultural emphasis on inspiration and illumination stories as “iconic” of the buried life of the mind is to render the intellectual labor that actually produces the writing invisible. Inspiration and illumination stories appear to be stories of intellectual labor without consciousness or labor. Creative moment metaphors are popular partly because they hide the intellectual labor that makes up the mundane activities of those who create. Their popularity suggests

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 21

22 Authors on Writing

that what is most popular about the process of writing is imagining that writing can be produced without one.

If we shift the focus from the alterity of creative moments and the interiority of the buried life of the mind, from writers’ subjectivity to how discourse shapes conceptions of composing, a different set of questions arise. Rather than concerns about interiority and authenticity, uniqueness and universality, alterity and excitement, attention now turns to how language constitutes writing processes, how discourses influence concepts of authorship, how instances of discourse contribute to understanding writing as a social institution. The relationship of shared language to concepts of intellectual labor becomes a focus of interest. Shifting our point of view from “interiority” and “alterity” to look at the discourse of composing in a strategically “exterior” way allows the inquiry to “problematize” the notion of “writing process” by considering how writing is formed in social discourses, rather than reflecting a “reality,” an isolated technology, a set of skills, or an essential characteristic of human “creativity.” To question people’s sense of creativity as central to the human subject, welling up from a spring of interiority, is not to deny their feelings or the sense of their experiences. It is to argue that such a sense of interiority is an effect of discourse, not its source. This is a circular process. The discourses of writing and creativity encourage both writers and readers to view interiority as producing “creative” writing. Positing that pre-existing interiority, they look to these same discourses for evidence of the workings of the interior life. From such a point of view, these “utterances” or instances of language I examine here do not demonstrate how authors “capture” into language their experiences of creativity and writing, but how they construct those experiences for themselves and for others, as part of a cultural apparatus of writing. This inquiry is an effort to identify the shared social language that orders conceptions of writing processes—a language all about work, action, and the mundane. In that light, these shared social languages about intellectual labor are not to be denigrated because they are “commonplace.” These languages are simply the way people—even people deemed “creative”—in fact especially people deemed “creative”—talk about their everyday writing activities. These texts form a discursive “field” to be inflected by individuals, a field that helps to organize our knowledge of writing practices. These shared social tropes, then, are the “hidden sources” of our writing lives.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

*

Writers’ metaphorical stories about their composing, while fascinating and individually inflected, draw on discursive resources—on pervasive and systematic ways of positioning writing activities that underlie the diversity of personal accounts. They do so not because they reflect some underlying trans-historical and trans-social “reality” of thinking activities, but because they are part of shared discursive practices for discussing composing. To understand writing requires understanding how these discursive practices frame authoring activities. In a climate emphasizing authorial subjectivity and interiority, arguments for the importance of shared language are often seen as thereby, of necessity, arguments against the significance of the exceptional subjectivity of authors. In a climate emphasizing the subject as constituting, transcendental, and essentialist, arguments for a subject constituted through shared discursive practices are often seen as thereby, of necessity, arguments against the subject as a source of knowledge, certainty, and creativity. Susan Hekman argues that such dichotomies position the constituted subject as a “social dupe” precisely because the dichotomy is “parasitic” on the modernist definition of the subject (1995). The constituted subject is constructed as simply the opposite of the modernist subject. Since the modernist subject is defined as the source of all agency and plenitude, the opposite of transcendental agency becomes no agency. Yet the kind of “discursive subject” that becomes useful in considering writers’ discourse about writing practices is neither social dupe nor transcendent. The writing of such a subject does not spring forth from an interior life free from social influence, nor is it ineluctably determined by its social world. According to Hekman, For the discursive subject, however, agency and construction are not antithetical. Rather, agency is a product of discourse, a capacity that flows from discursive formations. The discursive subject redefines agency in a way that explodes the boundaries imposed by the constituting/constituted dichotomy. It does not entail reference to a prediscursive “I” but, instead, entails that subjects find agency within the discursive spaces open to them in their particular historical period. The perspective offered by the discursive subject suggests that it is not the case that Descartes discovered the “truth” about human subjectivity and its agentic potential, but, rather, that the agency that is the hallmark of the Cartesian subject is created by the discourse of that subject, that is, that it enables those who employ it to speak as agents. (1995, p. 202)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 23

I argue that our understanding of writing processes is not well served by conceptions of a transcendent, emancipatory, heroic, solitary subject. I do not argue that discursive subjects cannot act in the spheres available to them to change their own and others’ lives. On the contrary, they can. They can do so in specific, local, and contingent ways—in fact, the very ways that are open to most people in their lives: the very ways that people might seek to influence through writing. This shift to valuing authors as “discursive subjects” encourages us to emphasize not their singularity but their imbrication in the social world. It changes not who the authors are, but our own approach to them, and, I would argue, our ability to hear the fluid, perspectival, multiple, partial truths about composing that they declare. Because of the multifaceted and complex nature of writing events and activities, it is not useful to talk about writing processes “as they are,” or “literally.” We can best understand composing in “as-if” terms, by means of metaphor. Any “reality” of composing, then, involves culturally shared notions of the relation of individual author to text, the traceable moves of writing acts, the social settings in which writing processes emerge, and their influences on subject, task, purpose, and audience. The “reality” of composing is not a “literal” reality, but a socially constructed one—a reality that includes what people believe to be real about what they do, and how they come to find it real. * The popularity of the metaphors of interiority and alterity, of the buried life of the mind as a “master narrative” or metanarrative subsuming literary creation, has turned attention from the multiplicity of ways that the metaphor narrative can be inflected as well as the wide range of “competing” metaphorical narratives that we will see in Chapters 4 and 5. For no single, defining metaphor controls our views of writing processes. Rather, as I argue in Chapter 3, these views are structured according to multiple metaphors, multiple models of the composing mind. Diverse metaphors reveal and create a range of perspectives on composing, focusing attention on different aspects of and attitudes toward writer, reader, text, process. Writers thinking before writing may say they are “gestating,” “lurking,” “jelling,” “simmering,” “ripening,” “blocking,” “filling the reservoir,” or “drying up.” These stories are not the same and do not describe the same writing processes. Authors frequently use multiple and contradictory metaphors to describe their writing acts. In fact, one of the strengths of

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

24 Authors on Writing

Composing and Metaphoricity 25

[I]magination is a form of knowledge…. it’s probably naive to think that there is always a clear distinction between fact and fiction. We all compose the world we live in every moment of our lives. (1984, p. 202) Descriptions of composing processes in writing reflect tensions created by two opposing tendencies: one toward generalization, the other toward particularity. These polarities exhibit a desire for unity and synthesis on the one hand, and an emphasis on idiosyncrasy on the other. Literary scholars who examine composing by means of manuscripts, notebooks, and letters tend to look to the practices of individual authors. Interviewers and scholars in composition and rhetoric tend to seek similarities in composing strategies, to generalize across groups of writers. Scholars concerned with creativity often represent the composing of literary authors as one or another version of a single, “convergent” process, often seen as similar across all kinds of creativity, including that of science and art. Perhaps because of a recurrent belief in an elusive “key” to creativity, interviewers and analysts commonly talk about “the creative process” (“What starts the creative process for you?”) or “the writing process” (“Tell us about your writing process.”)—as if all poets and novelists merely vary in idiosyncratic ways from a standard pattern or procedure, or, even more commonly, as if individual writers have one habitual strategy for writing, whatever the subject and rhetorical problem. Yet literary writers describe their writing frequently not merely as “eccentricity” (minor variations from a norm), but as difference. For instance, the authors in my corpus of interviews do not hesitate to talk about using different processes of writing for different purposes, in different genres, and for different topics. Many of these comments relate to the metaphorics of embodied labor that I examine in Chapter 4. For example, Marguerite Yourcenar indicates that each book is born with its own quite special form, rather like a tree. An experience transplanted into a book carries with it moss and wild flowers mixed in with the clump of earth adhering to its roots. Each thought that gives birth to a book conveys a whole set of

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

literature is exactly its opportunity for revealing multiple truths. The same should be said for the project of analyzing writers’ metaphors for composing. This is the impetus for comments such as that of E. L. Doctorow:

26 Authors on Writing

Yourcenar here uses a metaphor of embodied labor, Writing is Gardening, to emphasize that subjects and texts bring methods with them, that her method of composition is related to their nature, purpose, and conditions of emergence. Thus each new text to some degree represents a new task. An interaction between method and developing text gives a different “feel” to different writing projects, marking each with a unique origin and history. Yourcenar develops this sense of differing textures in another comment: In The Abyss it seemed to me … that I worked in granite, and in Archives de Nord I felt as though I was kneading a very thick dough. Yet that density is not a defect, in my view, but a characteristic of the society I was writing about. I know about dough, mind you: remember that I make my own bread…. You have to vary things according to your mood, you have to adapt the recipe to the materials at hand. Bread is never made twice in the same way. (1984, p. 185) Writers often turn to metaphorics of embodied labor like this in arguing that the “feel” of their material differs, conveying a sense of the differing shapes, textures, toughness, and malleability of their topics and texts. One result of variation in practices is that many writers, even those who are very experienced, claim that they are not always prepared for new rhetorical problems. Clarence Major points out, The things that I learned writing All-Night Visitors really didn’t carry over to NO. And I wasn’t able to use anything that I learned from writing NO in the process of writing Reflex and Bone Structure… . I’m not able to say I have now enough experience to go forward and write my books … Because I don’t. I can’t really use the experience. It’s not like an automobile mechanic who works on Volkswagens and he knows Volkswagens, so he’s able to really use that knowledge and it carries over from car to car… . [Instead it] involves discovering a new approach with each time, with each step. (1985, pp. 54–5)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

circumstances, a complex of emotions and ideas that will never appear in quite the same way in any other book. And each time the method is different. (1984, pp. 59–60)

Composing and Metaphoricity 27

Writers like Major and Yourcenar are not seeking to establish the nature of a general writing process, even their own. They emphasize the difference from one task to another, one problem to another.11

Once we recognize that we read writer’s stories of inspiration and illumination through the lens of the metanarrative of the buried life of the mind and its attendant creative-moment metaphors, and once we see that writers emphasize particularity and difference in their writing practices, it may be possible to overcome some of the cultural emphasis on interiority and alterity. Rather than seeing inspiration and illumination as standing for the whole of writing processes, we can see them as punctuating moments in the continuing engagement with discourse that makes up composing. We can then see inspiration and illumination stories as they are instantiated in the interviews: as stories of rare moments, or as stories embedded in other stories that emphasize composing as embodied labor and discursive sociality. For example, Geoffrey Hill uses an inspiration story that situates itself as also a story of labor. Hill reports, I do believe most profoundly in inspiration, but it has nothing to do with the vulgar notion of inspiration which supposes that Chopin sat at his piano listening to rain pattering on the roof and was immediately inspired to write the so-called ‘Raindrop’ Prelude. I believe that there must be such a thing as inspiration because I’ve experienced it. This inspiration comes at the end of a work, when maybe only a word or a phrase or a few sentences are wanting, and they will not come, and you struggle for hours, … and suddenly the word or phrase is there with that marvelous click like a closing box that Yeats talks about. (1981, p. 83)12 Even stories of “effortlessness” such as claims that writing just “flowed”—much admired in our culture—may turn out to be embedded as part of stories of on-going composing work. Doris Lessing indicates, Actually, I think I write much better if I am flowing. You start something off, and at first it’s a bit jagged, awkward, but then there’s a point where there’s a click and you suddenly become quite fluent. That’s when I think I am writing well. (1988, p. 94)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

*

Writers often use the story of a “click” as Lessing does, to describe an interrupting idea or sense of sudden ease that makes the writing task “fall into place.” These are metaphorical stories that situate moments of illumination within the context of a writing life. In such a life, writers are seldom sealed off from the possibility of writing. Rather their lightning bolts and clicks and pops and flashes take place within a context of a world of on-going text production, much as the metaphors of embodied labor that I discuss in Chapter 4. * The metanarrative of the buried life and attendant creative moment metaphors suppress not only references to embodied labor but also writers’ constant references to the social life of discourses. The influence of the metanarrative’s mystical attribution obscures the dialogue with the self and others, the situating oneself in language and discourse that encapsulate some of the most prevalent ways that writers talk about their composing. Claims in interviews that writing comes from “elsewhere”—a staple of classical, Romantic, and post-Romantic discourse—are almost always taken to refer to mysterious other-worldly sources. When an author says, “It just came to me,” it is generally not interpreted as “It just came to me from a cultural repository of discursive structures that include genres and other textual forms that shape what I write,” or as “It just came to me from the parts of my experience and understanding that represent a social world constructed through discourse.” Rather, it is interpreted as evidence of the “mystery” of the writing process, a practice that can never be fully understood and should, therefore, be merely admired. This removing of thinkers from their social scene might be understandable (though unfortunate) in the case of artists and scientists, whose creative processes might be seen as less connected to discourses. It is less explicable in the case of writers. Perhaps the dominance of the buried life of the mind contributes to our conceiving the creativity and activities of writers—whose raison d’être is language, whose métier is language—as somehow divorced from discourse. The embodied labors writers discuss in Chapter 4, the social interaction they describe in Chapter 5, both reveal that they work in a world saturated with discourse. For example, Charles Johnson, describing his composing, argues for a measure of agency in language itself: As Heidegger says, it’s language that covers over our perception. And it’s language in the hands of an artist that uncovers our perception.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

28 Authors on Writing

It’s the same phenomenon that conceals and reveals. This is why I think fiction is exciting. When I’m writing, things happen and I don’t quite know where they came from. I’d like to attribute them to the language itself, to its unpredictable possibilities. It’s like a trap door, the language drops you down to this whole other level of seeing. (1987, p. 259) Johnson’s metaphors position language at the center of the writing scene, concealing and revealing, opening possibility. It is language, he argues, that creates the door to insight. The personal and private so privileged in the buried life metanarrative and its attendant creative-moment metaphors can be repositioned also or otherwise as references to the quintessentially social. An example is found in stories that figure writing as dictation or listening to voices. Henry Miller indicates that he has, upon occasion, ceded control of his text to a dictator: it happens only at rare intervals, this dictation. Someone takes over and you just copy out what is being said…. I was grappling with ideas … I was saturated with it … the dictation took over most strongly with that book. (1977, p. 171) Taking dictation, transcribing, and recording imply energy and ease of arrival, writing without “thinking.”13 Yet the aura attached to writing that is characterized by special origins and special ease obscures other more valuable aspects of such metaphorical stories. Miller’s account is “saturated”: with language, style, and ideas. What he receives is discourse. What he “passes on” as he takes down the “dictation” is discourse. Taking dictation and writing “coming in voices”—both iconic of the writer’s alterity—are often shaped by writers in ways that counter the stories’ cultural role. Rather than declaring connection to outside forces, they often affirm social connections and histories in discourse. Wilson Harris discusses the “voices” of his and others’ novels speaking to him. Harris says, … the novels you write as well as the novels that other people write, have their own life. They speak to you. Now when that kind of speech is so haunting, that constitutes a development in the novel [being worked on] because the novels of the past are addressing you, are pushed on by some things you see, you are astonished at seeing

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 29

them. In some degree, they’re already residing in what has gone before… . it’s as if there is a chorus. This is one way of putting it, and certain voices are more to the fore, though the other voices are there. Then in another novel, the other voices come to the fore. You have to be attentive not only to what you’re doing but in some degree to what is coming back. (1981, p. 61) Without mentioning Mikhail Bakhtin, Wilson Harris positions himself as writing in a world of “Bakhtinian” dialogism. I argue in Chapter 5 that writers use prominent and pervasive families of metaphors to position themselves as writing in such a thoroughly social and discursive scene. * Most writing problems require effort rather than inspiration (a backbone rather than a wishbone). They might also benefit from interpretation of the metaphors used by published writers during interviews about their composing practices. Investigation of students’ composing processes often goes astray by seeking to establish the nature of “normal” or alternatively “novice” writing processes. Such categories appear to bring organization to the chaos of individual writing experiences, but not without consequences. These category labels themselves consist largely of metaphors for composing, each framing composition according to its own structure. For example, studying composing through speaking-aloud protocols is often criticized as interfering with writers’ normal writing processes that are assumed to be silent and unobservable. Yet we perpetrate a mild fraud in positing the existence of a “normal” writing process, rather than searching for ways of mapping, analyzing, and understanding the many different processes that take place when people write. In Chapter 3 I discuss how different ways of conceptualizing composing contribute to models that are richer, more fluid, more multiple, and more adequate. The prevalence of the search for a unitary composing process suggests some of the limitations inherent in generalizations about writers. Rather than seeking to expand analytic categories for composing, encompassing ever more writing acts, or to delimit these categories ever more accurately, we might well profit from doing just the opposite: by fragmenting the analysis of composing, making it “a-categorical,” or using categories as heuristic probes, seeing categories as temporary contrivances that represent shifting brief alliances enabling us to break

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

30 Authors on Writing

through a boundary, to broach a new area, to illuminate a moment. Gesturing thereby toward a holistic view of composing, moving back and forth between analysis and synthesis, playing off metaphorical stories against one another, we can then remain aware that our categories are not natural or organic, but social constructions. Understanding the multiple truths of metaphorical stories about composing processes requires us to suspend our desire for general laws or unified writing processes, for veridical reports on the “reality” of writing activities, for quintessential expressions of individual subjectivities, even for enjoying “uniquely personal” performances. Instead we use these metaphors as an entry point to cultural critique, to examining widespread discursive constructs that enable historically and socially specific ways of understanding writing. We do not seek to discern the hidden truths of the buried life of the mind, but rather to understand the shared social labor that we undertake together as writers and readers.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Composing and Metaphoricity 31

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models

I have argued in Chapter 2 that overemphasis on the interiority and alterity of the buried-life metanarrative occludes the richness and range of authors’ stories of their writing processes. Before moving to Chapters 4 and 5, where I analyze metaphors of labor and sociality, I establish in this chapter a framework for understanding why authors might use metaphorical stories of composing, what kinds of “knowledge” and “truth” can be found in such stories, what method we might use to read them, and what contributions these metaphorical stories make to understanding conceptions of composing. In thinking about why authors might use metaphorical stories about their writing processes, I argue that the metanarrative’s tendency to make labor invisible stems not just from the specific problems of intellectual labor, but from the difficulties of representing the persistent, cyclical, continuous nature of work itself. Using Elaine Scarry’s meditation on representing work in Resisting Representation (1994), I discuss problems of representing the on-going nature of work activities. To clarify what kinds of “knowledge” can be found in these metaphors, I pinpoint some of the specific problems of representing intellectual labor when such representations rely, as authors’ interviews do, on fallible methods of monitoring, recollecting, and reconstructing intricate and ephemeral activities. I compare the kinds of “truth” available from metaphors to that found in several other types of analysis. I then describe a conversational, contingent, comparative method of metaphor-reading that enables me to connect metaphors of individual authors to broader discourses that establish socially shared conceptions of writing processes. Finally, I discuss the particular contributions metaphorical stories or “models” of composing can 32

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

3

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 33

make to understanding writing processes and the discourses that surround them.

Why do authors use metaphorical stories for their writing processes? Part of the reason authors may resort to figurative language about composing is because of the difficulty of representing work itself, not just intellectual work. In a meditation on work and the body in Thomas Hardy and other nineteenth-century novelists, Elaine Scarry (1994) points to many of the problems that make labor “resist representation.” These problems of representing work in factories, in agriculture, in the workshop, bear directly on the problems of representing intellectual labor.1 First, the nature of work is continuous action rather than a discrete action. It is “perpetual, repetitive, habitual” (p. 65). Each move in work is modest, yet it is out of the rhythm and repetition of modest moves that workers create significance. Scarry argues that it is deeply difficult to describe work in its fullness, immediacy, rhythm, modesty, sensuousness. But the alternatives also present difficulties. One method used to describe work is to divide it. But dividing work temporally in order to describe an arbitrary segment of it (a “typical” sequence, for example) misrepresents work exactly because such a segment is removed from the repetition that is the nature of labor. Dividing work into specific tasks requires attention to the intricacy and complexity of the tasks, to the choices and elisions of their unfolding in the sequence of representation. Another method that Scarry describes is “to take the massive fact of work precisely at the moment when there is a tear or lapse in the activity that must be repaired, replaced, or rescued” (p. 66). Such a moment can represent the overall process of work, Scarry argues, because it is the whole of the process that is put at risk, the whole of the process that must be salvaged. She notes that Thomas Hardy, George Eliot and Emile Zola provide unusually detailed moments of rescue in their novels’ description of work, while other writers tend to provide more generalized acts of rescue that gesture toward “labor in general” or “the structure of work.” “Rescue and repair become effective models of work precisely because ‘survival,’ which is always at stake in ordinary work, becomes for the first time visibly at stake” (p. 67). Scarry’s categories of kinds of difficulty in representing work—and consequent “falsification” in representation—can function here as a

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

*

kind of scheme that helps us see why authors may use figurative language to describe their working practices. Authors’ interviews offer no opportunity for a full delineation of an author’s writing processes. Sometimes an author will present a brief summary of a day’s activities, but only in the most general terms. But authors do sometimes use metaphors to demonstrate the “perpetual, repetitive, habitual” nature of their work. In Chapter 2, we saw Marguerite Yourcenar contrast the “feel” of different texts—of working in granite or kneading dough. She uses the metaphor of kneading dough to present a picture of on-going, rhythmic, sensuous action. I quote further: There are stages in bread-making quite similar to the stages of writing. You begin with something shapeless, which sticks to our fingers, a kind of paste. Gradually that paste becomes more and more firm. Then there comes a point when it turns rubbery. Finally, you sense that the yeast has begun to do its work: the dough is alive. Then all you have to do is let it rest. But in the case of a book the work may take ten years. (1984, pp. 185–6) Yourcenar’s metaphor situates her working with supple interconnected stages, modest repetitive movements. A rhythm of work and rest, work and rest, work and rest. Those authors who describe their writing by evoking sequences of alternative work processes, as Yourcenar does here, are more likely to illuminate the repetitive scope of their writing processes. Much more common are writers dividing work into temporal moments and opening out one or another of the tasks that are part of their work as writers. Many metaphorical stories of writing, including stories of labor and sociality that I examine in Chapters 4 and 5, focus on one task or another in writing. Metaphors of collecting and accretion, for example, represent writing in early stages, before the author might claim to be “writing,” but are also persistent, cyclical, rhythmic. Vladimir Nabokov uses a collecting image in describing his early writing activities: All I know is that at a very early stage in the novel’s development I get this urge to collect bits of straw and fluff, and to eat pebbles .… inspiration … having me accumulate the known materials for an unknown structure. (1980, p. 69) Many writers describe themselves as engaged in small tasks: creating collages and mosaics,2 pulling together elements, bits, pieces, frag-

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

34 Authors on Writing

ments, assembling things, putting, bringing, piecing, tying, melding them together.3 Stories of accretion and amalgam also demonstrate the writing life as accumulation of small tasks.4 Task-oriented stories are probably the most common kind of metaphorical stories of the intellectual work of writing. Stories in the category of “ruptures” in the work process—a category Scarry deems “tears” and “repair”—are of deep significance here. Creative-moment metaphors, metaphors of labor, metaphors of sociality, all offer opportunity for authors to describe interruption, punctuation, a sudden change in work process. Often the moment is situated in a scene of “normal” activity, interrupted by the sudden need for or onset of intense activity. The intensity connects that writing moment to the impetus, salvage, and repair of entire projects of writing. Scarry has reminded us that the scene of work is an on-going site of engagement and interaction, not discrete action. In writing lives, then, writing is not a discrete event, but a pattern, a background, of repetitive moves, ways of thinking, ways of living. This is the perpetual background, yet metaphors of writing often focus on sudden events, intense moves, shifts in work practice, incursion of new work methods. Many of the most dramatic metaphorical stories of composing focus on that moment when the work is “torn,” where the pattern is shattered, where the work practice must shift to accommodate sudden change. Scarry’s meditation on work’s resistance to representation also focuses attention on the problems of representing the world and the person in interaction. She demonstrates how Hardy represents human consciousness in embodied interaction with the world, so that “all states of being—not just overt, physical activity but even what appear to be forms of physical inactivity like reading or perceiving or feeling— inevitably entail reciprocal jostling with the world” (p. 51). Contemporary authors engaged in intellectual labor are embodied beings “jostling” with the world, and they tell us about it repeatedly. Sometimes the metaphor focuses on what is at once both a moment of the “rupture” and an assertion of the world on the author. For example, John Graves is jerked into a specific kind of writing by a “break” in the pattern of the world around him. I have never developed an orderly approach to the business of studying out something to write. It’s like a nail sticking out of the wall: you walk past it for six months without seeing it, and all of a sudden it tears your shirt as you go by. Every once in a while something will slap me in the face; thank God it does. (1980, p. 68)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 35

Graves’s metaphor is similar to Yourcenar’s “bolt from the blue,” quoted in Chapter 2. Both metaphors punctuate scenes of “normal activity.” Graves terms the world and the impetus it provides a “nail” that “tears your shirt” and “something” that “slaps [your] face.” Both describe punctuation created in an encounter with the world. But our difficulty imagining intellectual labor produced by bodies in the world (rather than disembodied minds) promotes our reading metaphors like Yourcenar’s—metaphors that demonstrate punctuation in connection with the world—as the opposite: as buried life, inspiration, illumination. Yet most metaphorical stories of composing are not stories of disembodied minds: quite the contrary. They represent authors as embodied persons (bodies and minds together) jostling, rubbing, connecting, interacting with the world. Embodiment reminds us that there are “insides” and “outsides” of various kinds that go into processes of writing: the author, the “self,” the “mind,” the world, the text, the character, the discourse situation. Metaphorical stories are replete with spatial relations of various kinds based on embodiment. The kinds of “insides” and “underneath” and “within,” the up/down and in/out binaries that structure metaphorical stories about writing are not claims about interiority as the fount of creativity, but claims about embodiment and work. Stanley Kunitz, for example, draws on metaphors of labor and sociality to connect himself and the world. He says, I’m leafing through my notebooks, something I jotted down months or years ago often catches my eye. It’s been there all the time, sleeping, and at the same time it’s been simmering in my own mind. And I look at it and suddenly I can see what else it’s hooked to, what other buried phenomena. And at that point, when it signals its attachment to the layers of the life, I can use it. (1974 Ryan, p. 85) Kunitz in this passage is figuring work as both continuity and discontinuity, as appeals from discourses and texts, as slippage between his own agency and that of his texts, as connection between the tangible and the intangible, between the working author and the world. Spaces, spatial relations, and connection are significant: things are jotted “down,” things are “in” his mind, things “catch” the eye and are “hooked” to other things that are “buried,” and life is “layered.” Subtle, modest work is figured as things “simmer.” Dynamic discursivity is figured as things “catch” and “sleep” and “signal.” Metaphorical stories do not present work as one thing, but as a complex of things:

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

36 Authors on Writing

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 37

* Scarry’s discussion of the difficulties of representing work is primarily focused on novelists’ representations of the work of artisans, agricultural and industrial laborers, and so forth, and touches only briefly on intellectual work. Intellectual work is also difficult to represent because it consists of on-going cognitive and emotional processes that are intangible and unrecorded. In the case of interviews, the thinker is also the one who provides the representation, a further difficulty. Processes such as composing that are complex and not closely monitored are difficult to grasp, describe, and explain veridically. Published writers certainly know that the nature of the writing process—intricate, interconnected, inchoate—subverts any attempt at precision. Discussing his writing, poet Edward Dorn says, But in any case, we’re speaking of large, general habits which hang like curtains way behind the work. Even by talking of it this way I’m giving it a twist I can already hear is not accurate. It was a kind of brooding preoccupation. I fuss a lot over work when I’m not actually doing it, and then do it in very quick moments. (1980 Fredman, p. 75) The “unrecoverable” nature of writing processes—their resistance to recollection and representation—is not a problem of untrustworthiness or naiveté on the part of authors (though they may, of course, indulge in rhetorical display). Rather, it is part of the difficulty of knowing and representing one’s own cognitive processes retrospectively. With or without figurative language, writers’ descriptions of their own composing are constructions, not recollections. The only kind of knowledge available for these descriptions of writing activities is “metacognitive” knowledge: knowledge about one’s own thinking activities. The passage from Dorn that I quote above demonstrates his metacognitive knowledge as well as his awareness of its inadequacy. He characterizes thinking and working habits—practices of dwelling on work and swift inscription. He cites his ways

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

as connection, intersection, interaction, dynamism, embodiment. All are central to authors’ figurative stories about their writing processes. Scarry’s categories enable us to see why people may use metaphorical stories of their work as writers. We need to turn to what kind of knowledge or “truth” such stories represent.

of being in the world, his habits which “hang like curtains behind the work,” as influencing but not determining his processes. Dorn’s metacognitive knowledge, like that of all writers, cannot emerge simply from reflection. Rather, it is constructed from referring to general procedures, generalizing from salient episodes, reconstructing from task analysis, and referring to a priori theories. These a priori theories function as “schemas” to shape general views of how writing is done. If authors— like all thinkers—cannot accurately monitor and recollect what they have done, where do these stories of writing processes come from? While composing, writers have moments when they become aware of themselves as thinkers and writers, moments when they pause to observe themselves in the act of writing, to monitor their choice of strategies, or to reflect on what they are doing. These are “metacomposing” experiences when writers are “thinking about their thinking.”5 In effect, writers attempting to understand and describe their writing processes are engaged in comprehending or interpreting a particularly difficult kind of “text” or “text-analogue.” Like other objects calling for interpretation, this text-analogue is in some sense “confused, incomplete, cloudy, seemingly contradictory—in one way or another unclear” (Taylor, 1987, p. 33). Cognitive processes such as writing are complex and rarely closely monitored. They are difficult to grasp, describe, and explain veridically. Writers are unable to attend to certain aspects of their processes, unlikely to heed others, and apt to misjudge the effects or importance of what they do notice. The more they monitor, the more the processes may be altered as a result. As time passes, they tend to forget details that they originally grasped. Asked to generalize and make inferences when describing their writing activities to themselves or to others, they must go beyond reporting the uncertain information obtained from metacomposing experiences to interpret it, to construct a narrative or representation. John Barth talks about the shift in his stance from the moment of writing where he is focused on one task, and the moment of retrospection, focused on another. There is an interesting balance … between theorizing about what you’re doing and doing it. As you compose, particularly if you have a theoretical turn of mind, you’re likely to be interested in working out any theoretical notions that you might be afflicted with about the medium you’re working in. But you also know … that you work to a large degree by hunch and intuition, and inspiration, as they say. Then, retrospectively, you may understand a great deal more in

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

38 Authors on Writing

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 39

Most writers are perfectly aware that they cannot capture adequately the micro-movements of writing, though they may try in a variety of ways. These problems of definition, memory, and representation underlie all attempts to remember experiences, not just those of thinking and writing. Because people are fallible and limited as they observe and remember their own writing activities, they must draw upon other sources such as formal or informal descriptions of writing that are socially transmitted, in order to construct apparently coherent accounts of their composing. The way authors both experience and characterize their writing is partly determined by these a priori explanations of what the writing process entails. All literate people understand their own and others’ writing processes partly according to what they think such experiences should be like. Popular metaphors reflect and shape writers’ metacomposing experiences and seem to encapsulate significant and salient aspects of composing experiences. Understanding writers’ narratives and tropes of composition is, therefore, central to the study of writing processes, for in writing, as in most activities, stories and images help guide people’s actions. Socially derived and approved knowledge consists of sets of instructions (Schutz, 1962)—in this case, instructions for going about writing, but also for thinking and talking about one’s writing. Instructions establish what people should expect to experience as they write, helping them interpret their metacomposing experiences coherently and memorably. Instructions provide writers with explanatory frames of reference for understanding and remembering their writing activities. Writers may turn to social constructs learned (directly or indirectly) from textbooks, teachers, and commentaries by published authors to explain their writing processes.7 By means of these frames of reference writers can perceive and evaluate information from their writing experiences, integrate new understandings with previous knowledge, and communicate their conceptions of the writing process. Metaphorical stories are “prototypical” social constructs framing or modeling writing activities to bring them into a kind of “coherence.” The social language used to discuss the writing process binds all

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

the theoretical way about what it was that you in fact did, than you understood at the time. When we talk about it, we’re talking retrospectively, so I think sometimes we give the impression that we’re all terribly theoretical when we sit down at the desk, which of course we aren’t. (John Barth, 1974, pp. 134–5)6

individuals talking about writing. Everyone is constrained by the social dialogue. When writers (or writing scholars) tap into social narratives, particularly figurative stories about composing, they are reconnecting, consciously or unconsciously, with this dialogue. The frames of reference that writers develop, revise, and use, many of which are encapsulated in metaphorical stories about writing processes, can be considered mental models of composing.8 A mental model functions as a kind of informal, private, unarticulated theory, an internal model of the situation to help people explain and make predictions about the world. Although writers’ internal models and private theories may be incomplete, unstable, uncertain, ephemeral, partial, contradictory, and unscientific, they nonetheless serve more or less successfully as guides to thought and action. Writers’ internal models are not always private, however. Models can be articulated and shared. They can be revealed by language and behavior. Some cognitive models are intersubjectively shared among members of social groups, in which case they serve as cultural models or folk models (D’Andrade, 1987; Holland and Quinn, 1987). More specialized than folk models, experienced writers’ figurative models or metaphorical models not only concretize cultural models of composing, but contribute importantly to the sense that writing processes are knowable and can be intersubjectively shared. * Given the difficulty representing work, and the further difficulty representing intellectual labor, what kinds of “truth” do metaphorical models convey, and how do they contrast to other ways of conceptualizing and studying writing processes? The complexity of authors’ metaphorical stories with their fluid, perspectival, multiple, partial truths about composing should counter our desire for metanarrative binaries of one kind or another—rational/nonrational, control/no control, agency/no agency, active/passive, effort/ effortlessness. The “as-if” terms of metaphorical stories about composing work at a level that is neither global nor local, neither general nor particular, but both/and. They encapsulate complex moves of writing processes in ways that are concrete but not literal. They are both “true” and “not true.” Studies of cognition can help us recognize that different levels of analysis produce different and contrasting “truths,” including truths that are inconsistent—in effect, multiple truths. George Lakoff and

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

40 Authors on Writing

Mark Johnson note that “[I]n much of the Western philosophical tradition, truth is taken to be absolute and scientific truth claims take priority over nonscientific truth claims” (1999, p. 105). Lakoff and Johnson argue that multiple “truths” about color in cognitive theory challenge this method of evaluating truth claims. Lakoff and Johnson distinguish three levels of “embodiment” necessary for a full understanding of the mind—neural, phenomenological, and cognitive unconscious. The “correspondence theory of truth” of traditional philosophy, they claim, does not distinguish among these levels of analysis. Studies of the neurophysiology of color vision indicate that it is the body—the color cones of the eyes and the neural circuitry—in interaction with local light conditions and the wavelength reflectances of objects that create the sense that color is found “in” objects: colors do not inhere in objects themselves. Lakoff and Johnson point out that this “truth” of color vision as revealed by neurophysiology does not reflect the “truth” of color found in everyday perceptions. … . [Yet at] the phenomenological level of conscious experience, we perceive colors as being “in” the objects that “are” colored. At this level, there are common truths: Grass is green, the sky is blue, blood is red. Green, blue, and red are one-place predicates holding of grass, the sky, and blood. (1999, p. 105) Without taking account of the contradiction of these different “truths” of color, Lakoff and Johnson argue, it is impossible to describe color theory properly. What is “correct” at the neural level is not at the phenomenological level. What is “correct” at the phenomenological level is not accurate at the neural level. “Here is the dilemma: A scientific truth claim based on knowledge about the neural level is contradicting a truth claim at the phenomenological level” (1999, p. 105). For Lakoff and Johnson, the “dilemma” of the truth of color encapsulates the problem of requiring that only one level, one metaphor, one story represent truth. All methods of inquiry require decisions about what is to be examined and the ways it may be examined in order to develop truths useful for disciplinary arguments. Disciplinary advocates, even in the sciences and social sciences, are often aware that their perspectives are partial, even though they might not phrase their arguments in that way. For example, social scientists conducting empirical studies are very aware of the competing claims for “reliability” versus “validity” versus “generalizability”: assessment must produce repeatable results, results that adequately represent what is being assessed, and results that can be generalized to larger

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 41

populations. Better satisfying the demands of one criterion may at the same time make another more elusive.9 A “laboratory” study of composing must be done with only a few particular writers, particular texts, and particular methods of collecting and analyzing information. The results cannot be generalized to all writers in all situations, but they can provide partial perspectives. Schematic models of generalized processes offer broad suggestive understanding. They do not attempt to describe the moves of all writers under all circumstances. Cognitive inquiry attempts to open the “black box” of individual cognition. However flawed some find its assumptions, we should not deny ourselves the benefits of the knowledge it produces. It is far preferable to see cognitive inquiries as approximations than summarily to reject them for their failure to reflect adequately other important perspectives such as the social. Rather than mystifying stories, predominant metaphors are summarizing stories, summarizing a myriad of small textual developments and dramatic textual consequences. They represent composing as processes of engagement and entanglement, as a welter of decisions that all impinge on both texts and authors, who, after all, live together. They put “the social” at the center of the writing scene. It is important to recognize that most literate people use figurative stories to understand and describe writing processes. Those studying and teaching composition use them, as when Peter Elbow (1973, 1981), describes “cooking,” James Britton (1982) describes spontaneous inventiveness as “shaping at the point of utterance,” Ann E. Berthoff describes the paragraph as a “gathering hand” (1978, 1981), or Barrett Mandel (1980) declares that “the writer writing is not at home.” Students use them incessantly, particularly the ubiquitous statement: “It just flowed.” Figurative stories offer antecedent guiding structures, ready-made frames or “schemas,” for understanding otherwise confused and confusing composing experiences. Figurative language can summarize an inchoate experience such as composing, viewing it by means of another domain of experience which is understood more clearly, and thus establishing an explanatory frame of reference through the source domain. Composing-process metaphors, like other metaphors, explain and ground the unknown by linking it to the known, the abstract by linking it to the concrete. In so doing, they encapsulate in the figurative story part of a complex structure of knowledge about composing. As narratives, they impose temporal order and logical cause and effect relationships on processes that might otherwise disappear into the infinitely diverse and plural events, ideas, and symbols people negotiate every day.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

42 Authors on Writing

Yet it also appears that part of the function of metaphors for writing is exactly to resist the imposition of rationality and coherence. Using metaphors becomes a way of remaining “truthful” to one’s sense of the chaotic and not fully known aspects of composing. In fact, it appears that using metaphors for composing can subvert the ideal of precise structure desired by both interviewer and writer by pretending to satisfy it, without, in fact, quite doing so. Though the metaphors do supply explanatory power and coherence, they do so only by extending the structure of another domain to composing. Powerful as it is, the structure providing explanatory strength is that of the source domain. People accept as coherent even stories that make no attempt to be, as when Frederick Manfred says that an “‘Old Goat,’ is really boss of everything” (1974, p. 114), or Samuel Beckett remarks that he “works constantly in the dark,” so that talking about how he writes is “like an insect leaving his cocoon” (1968, p. 51) or Anne Sexton claims, “it’s all a mystery to me, it all just happens” (1974, p. 19). “Out of my control, don’t know, too mysterious, can’t talk about it,” is an acceptable story about imaginative composing for authors in this culture, particularly if they go on to indicate the pitfalls, with regard to their creativity, of such rational talk. People use and understand figurative stories because they are an extraordinarily efficient and accessible method of providing information about composing. The stories are vivid, yet carry a great deal of information in a few words. Most are rich with implication. Though writers seldom provide details, writer and audience do not need extensive knowledge of the metaphor’s source domain to interpret the figurative story. James Dickey compares his revising to mining ore. When he does so, he indicates that he has only a vague idea of what is involved in refining (he gestures toward it by saying “and whatever you have to do to refine low-grade ore”). Members of his audience may have knowledge of mining or refining no more specific than his. But each interprets the figurative story according to his or her knowledge of its implications. Despite the general lack of expertise in mining, each knows, as Dickey does, enough characteristics of mining to draw upon when considering mining as a model of the writing process. * Analyzing authors’ metaphorical stories requires a conversational, contingent, and comparative approach to metaphor-reading, one that is

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 43

informed by the tradition of Lakoff and Johnson (for example, 1980 Metaphor, 1980 “Conceptual,” 1999), as well as the work of Donald A. Schon (1993), who connects metaphors to stories of social life.10 While it cannot examine all aspects of the use of language in passages illustrated, this method of metaphor-reading assumes the central significance of seven points. First, figurative language plays a central role in making sense of experience. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson demonstrate the degree to which people draw on their understanding of concrete concepts to think about abstractions (1980 Metaphor, 1980 “Conceptual,” 1999), although the profound effects metaphor has on how people think often remain unacknowledged. Metaphors can achieve this cognitive effect by encouraging “seeing-as.” Frames or perspectives from one domain of experience are “carried over” to another. When writing and thinking are represented as emanating from places deep and buried, text creation takes place within a network of “ready-made” suggestions about writers’ tasks, so far-reaching as to eventually imply specific theories of agency, subjectivity, interiority, and cognition. Whether authors primarily use metaphors of interiority and alterity or metaphors of labor and sociality, then, and how they use such metaphors, allows us to understand authors’ experiences in writing as well as their discourses about it. Second, this method of selecting and examining metaphorical stories emphasizes their implicit narrativity. The figurative language appears in descriptive tales of how authors go about their activities as writers, how they get their writing done. The background scene always is that of the author in the act of writing, engaged in the events of writing, completing the tasks of writing. My selection of metaphors emphasizes this implicit narrativity, for I identify instances of figurative language that situate the acts and processes of writing as movements, actions, and activities, as a series of steps and flux. The metaphors selected for analysis reflect this sense of writing as either process or as discrete events ultimately connected in sequences as part of the experiences of a writing life.11 While, as Scarry argues, the activities of work do not have discrete beginnings, middles, and endings, the stories authors construct about the activities of their writing tend to shape themselves as narratives. Third, the themes of authors’ metaphorical stories create a network of implications. Writers’ metaphorical stories about the labor of composing emphasize and suppress different elements of the composing process. Each figurative story highlights and hides different aspects in the writing process—waiting for, searching for, creating, nurturing,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

44 Authors on Writing

transforming, combining, refining, or revising. Metaphors identify different locations for ideas (inside or outside the writer), different characteristics of the ideas to be obtained (more or less independent of the writer, elusive), different roles for the writer (as recipient, vehicle), different responsibilities for writing problems (in the writer, in the environment). These networks of meanings and relationships, taken together, constitute conceptions of composing. Fourth, an author’s particular inflections of a metaphorical story can emphasize some of these implications but also play against them. For example, the theme of a story of labor may be used to play with the notion of agency, to hide and reveal it. Stories can emphasize moments of passivity in an active labor process. They can figure the author as controlling agent in what might appear to be a passive stage of labor. They can emphasize moments of discovery that will be followed by back-breaking labor. Authors can leave unstated the specifics of labor, as Marguerite Yourcenar does with her reference to gardening that I quote in Chapter 2 (“An experience transplanted into a book carries with it moss and wild flowers …” [1984, pp. 59].) Yourcenar does not delineate implications of writing is gardening, but they inhere to her metaphor. Authors can deny a particular metaphor to emphasize an alternative, as Clarence Major does (“It’s not like an automobile mechanic who works on Volkswagens …” [1985, pp. 54–5, emphasis added].) Fifth, authors treat metaphorical stories as tools not commitments. Authors move from one metaphor to another even within a sentence. Authors can draw from two contrasting metaphorical stories with conflicting implications to characterize two different writing experiences (Yourcenar’s “granite” and “bread”), but they can also use contradictory and disparate metaphors to talk about different moments in the “same” experience. In other words, writers manipulate their metaphorical stories of writing just as they do other language, so as not to be totally bound by the implications of the metaphorical stories they use. Sixth, a particular metaphorical story positions itself as an element in a larger argument, an element that plays with and against the interview’s overall presentation of writing activities. For instance, a particular metaphor may appear within the author’s larger discussion specifically to dramatize the difference between one kind of composing and another. An example appeared in Chapter 2, in a statement by Richard Eberhart: I insist that in at least half a dozen cases in my life some of my best poems have been given to me. (1979 Cannito, p. 249)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 45

This appears as a story of poetic passivity congruent with the buried life of the mind. But the discursive context positions it as a story of exception—quite different from Eberhart’s “typical” writing processes. In this example the passage quoted itself contains a caution that such “given” poems are rare; more often such modifiers are part of the larger discursive context of the interview and thus not evident in the metaphorical passage quoted. Authors cite, deny, inflect, position, use metaphorical stories as part of larger narratives of writing lives. Seventh, the method of metaphor-reading I use is focused on examining the ways that composing is constructed in larger cultural discourses about authorship. The ways that literary theorists and scholars, composition theorists and scholars, teachers of writing and literature, readers, and writers themselves talk about writing processes are all partial. I am trying to enrich a conversation among these parties. Our efforts to create a coherent story of “the writing process” impose false coherence on diverse, plural, and often contradictory practices and perceptions. Writing is much more varied than our own discourse about it. Yet this discourse becomes a social fact and a powerful social force because it influences how people learn to write. It is the primary widely available and socially sanctioned way to discuss writing. The method of metaphor-reading I use seeks to enrich our understanding of these widely shared discourses about composing. * Unlike other explanations of composing, figurative stories are not specific, but suggestive; as a result, they can be easily grasped and remembered. In return for emphasizing some aspects of composing and suppressing others, the story supplies a context for interpreting behaviors and attitudes, a context that explains much about the process, its goals, the writer’s attitudes, and the activities of writing. This context allows both writer and audience to overcome the effects of vagueness, inconsistencies, or lacunae in a story’s description. Both writers and audience can draw upon the contextual coherence of figurative stories in order to transform the fragmented information absorbed from social sources and writing experiences into a more fully integrated understanding of the processes of writing. Yet these stories are also a performance, one often found pleasurable and entertaining whether or not it informs or enlightens. Figurative stories about composing contribute to a writers’ ethos and persona. They also can contribute to the sense of a shared community

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

46 Authors on Writing

of writers and, at the same time, to a sense of one’s intense individuality as a writer. Considering their own and others’ figurative stories can help working writers, whether students or professionals, to monitor and manage their writing processes. They can contribute to understanding one’s attitudes and emotions about writing, and even become practical guides for writing behavior. Figurative stories can make social what during writing seems so individual: pains and frustrations, uncertainties, strategic moves, the exhilaration of success. People can be reinvigorated by the knowledge that others too must search for every nugget or must refine drafts that are low-grade. Others too find that writing takes “damn much labor.” People can use figurative stories to learn about their attitudes and emotions while writing, gaining therapeutic value from them. The result may be greater control over writing behaviors. Writers can make metaphors about their own composing, then consider what these metaphors may reveal about problematic attitudes, emotions, fears. Probing may reveal the kinds of underlying concerns that can inhibit the most skilled of writers: ways they avoid writing, ways they overlook important sources of ideas, ways that they put their attention to unproductive tasks, ways that they carry dysfunctional emotions and attitudes from other settings into the writing task. Such analyses need not be elaborate. Writers engaged in difficult and frustrating writing tasks can pause to determine an appropriate figurative label for what they are doing. Some labels provide suggestions for effective strategies; other labels reveal self-knowledge and a refreshing sense of control over a writing process that can seem overwhelming. Scholars in rhetoric and composition argue about the benefits of certain ways of modeling the composing process. In the 1980s and early 1990s, many composition specialists accorded privileged position to models of composing which draw on research methods of the cognitive sciences,12 assuming that such formalized models might help develop understanding of cognitive strategies. Others deplored the language and point of view of such models and promoted more holistic and much less specific ways of discussing writing processes. Yet all research on writing assumes and implies models of composing. Just as writers’ views of the writing process are mediated by socially shared language, so are the views of those who conduct research on writing. There is no such thing as a unified, discrete, atomized, and homogenous “idealized” writing process not grounded in shared language and shared experience. One studies writing processes

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 47

by using language to think and talk and write about them. This language is not a transparent neutral vehicle for conveying the researcher’s revelations of “reality-as-it-is.” Exploring the implications of their own language about writing processes, becoming critical of it, cognizant of other choices, contemplative about the ramifications of what they do and do not say, scholars will be better able to analyze the models of composing underlying their discussions and understand the significance of various ways of modeling writing processes. These metaphorical themes can be considered as informal “theoretical models,” as descriptive theory. Models bear a metaphorical relationship to that which they model. The model is not considered to be the thing, only something which represents the thing, stands for the thing, functions to some degree as the thing does. The relationship between an individual event or object and an abstract conception of it also may be “metaphorical.” In making generalizations and classifications in models of composing, people “agree” to overlook the individuality of the specific event in order to be able to understand such events in the abstract, to see a shared pattern of events, to find coherence in chaos. It is only because people have agreed to allow leaps from individual events to shared patterns that there can even be such a thing as a concept of the composing process.13 It is helpful to recognize that cognitive research models and metaphorical models of the writing process are based on two different types of “knowing.” Research models focus on the process of writing from an observer’s point of view, while metaphorical models proceed from the writer’s point of view. Research models look to explain and account for specific moves in writing, while metaphorical models stress the writer’s experience of those moves. Both models are social constructs, interpretations of evidence about the writing process. Research models attempt to be systematic, analytic, and inclusive, while metaphorical models are intuitive, integrative, and suggestive. The virtues of one kind of model can be used to criticize the other, for the virtues of each tend to point up the weaknesses of the other model. The virtues of one kind of model, however, cannot be used to deny the other; they simply are not doing the same kind of thing. How do these similarities and differences between types of models affect their ability to tell true and important things about writing processes? More “objective” models of composing share the basically metaphorical status of the informal models; the differences are more of degree than of kind.14 Both kinds of models can make similar claims about their “veridicality,” “accuracy,” and “truth.” On the surface, one

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

48 Authors on Writing

can see that the metaphor describes “falsely” what people have agreed is the “true” writing event. Yet in fact, metaphorical models illustrate their own kind of truth, the truth of writers’ subjective experiences of the writing event, their conceptions of it. While it would appear that a rigorous “test” of many metaphorical models might prove impossible,15 their “lack of objectivity” has advantages. One is more likely to know metaphorical models are metaphorical, be more easily reminded that such models are related to writing acts metaphorically, more alert to their assumptions and fictional elements. In addition, the variety of metaphorical models directs attention to the dynamics of contrasting views of composing. Metaphorical models are more likely to “keep us honest” about the complexity of writing processes.16 Most important, metaphorical models may reveal distinctions between writing acts which look the same to an outside observer.17 The same “objective” moves during the writing process can be perceived and reconstructed quite differently. An outside observer might see no difference in writing behavior when a writer says “that came to me unbidden, a gift,” and in another where he or she wipes metaphorical sweat from the brow and says, “I really had to dredge that one up,” or “I had to fight the text all the way here.” Yet these acts are not quite “the same.” So metaphorical models can disclose when different emotional as well as intellectual events take place during writing, and thus distinguish between composing events that other types of models find identical. This is important indeed for theories of composing. Metaphorical models provide exactly what many other models of composing deny us, the thinking and feeling that writers experience. Rather than attending to a myriad of specific decisions and moves, metaphorical models frankly summarize these acts to grasp and express the writers’ “felt sense” of the writing experience (see Perl and Egendorf, 1979). Describing composing “synthetically” rather than “analytically,” writers incorporate into their descriptions salient cognitive activities, perceptions of the emerging text, attitudes held and emotions experienced during the process. By doing so, they accentuate the emotions and attitudes that underlie, influence, and even transform the cognitive processes being revealed by research into composing. Metaphorical models can be used to probe writers’ narratives, assumptions and explanations, and to help people re-conceptualize their writing processes. Rather than operating as competitors to cognitive models of composing, metaphorical models establish an arena of concern of their own, and contain a kind of truth of their own. To

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models 49

50 Authors on Writing

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

affirm that truth is to assume a broad, rich view of the writing process itself, and hence of people’s ability to experience, comprehend, and represent their own writing processes.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

4

Writers’ “metaphorics of embodied labor” evokes a writing process with little resemblance to the inspiration and incubation stories of the buried life of the mind. Bodies, time, spaces, and the processes of work, growth, and change assume center stage when writers describe their work as embodied labor. Writing is figured by means of metaphors of effort, temporality, rhythm, liminality, and tangibility, by varied acts and mutable texts. The rhythms of activity and pause, of movement and return, fill stories of spatiality, directions, and movement. Some metaphors emphasize large physical tasks such as in mining; others stress small moves and nurturance, as in gardening. Some metaphors focus on physiological labors such as gestating or giving birth. Temporal analogies and allegories reference the inevitable slippages that occur because texts have histories and futures, they are written, re-written, published, and read at many different moments. All these metaphors testify to the emotional content of a shared social understanding of the embodied labor that goes into writing. The method of metaphor-reading I proposed in Chapter 3 suggests several different analytic lines to bring together metaphors for scrutiny: (1) examining how different authors engage with a particular metaphorical story, (2) examining the ways in which metaphorical stories draw on the network of implications that characterize them, (3) examining what metaphors authors use in discussing particular writing activities, stages, or events. In this chapter I will do each in turn. First I examine the story of Writing is Mining and related stories. I then demonstrate ways in which Writing is Mining is in “conversation” with other metaphorical stories of labor that might at first appear to be quite different. Finally I examine 51

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor

52 Authors on Writing

metaphors for revision, the great majority of which emphasize labor.

The embodied labor of authors is not entirely absent from our social imaginary, but it is often represented in very limited ways. Linda Brodkey, in her superb essay “Modernism and the Scene(s) of Writing” (1987), discusses the pervasive image of the “scene of writing”: “a solitary writer alone in a cold garret working into the small hours of the morning by the thin light of a candle” (p. 396). Brodkey calls this image of the scene of writing a “representative anecdote” in the terms of Kenneth Burke (1945),1 a story that selects and shapes our attention to privilege only the moment of transcription, as if it were a synecdoche of writing. She argues against the limitations imposed by its iconicity: “To the extent that the scene of writing encourages the reification of one moment in writing as writing, by excluding all other moments, the image itself is hegemonic, for its authority prevents us from entering or leaving the scene itself” (p. 400). Brodkey demonstrates that the “romantic” image of this scene of writing relates crucially to modernist impulses and anxieties that influence both authors and critics. The scene of writing, like the buried life of the mind and creative-moment metaphors, presents a restricted view of cognitive labor. Brodkey also argues that the scene of writing serves to occlude temporality or duration from writing practice: “The scene of writing is just that, a scene or tableau that represents an event (transcription) as the experience (writing) by removing writer and writing from the influence of both durative and historic time” (404). With its emphasis on inscription, Brodkey argues, the scene of writing “dehumanizes” the writer, who is portrayed as a “writing machine.” Foregrounding metaphorical stories of embodied labor can help us broaden the limited picture of the scene of writing that Brodkey criticizes. With her evocation of the writer as “writing machine” Brodkey signals concern with what counts as human, what counts as “production” and “human labor,” and what connections there may be between “bodies and machines,” including writers and their tools and technologies of production. For writing is partially a technology. And, as Brodkey notes, part of what it means to be a writer is to generate text. Part of what a writer is, then, is a “writing machine”—not the “dehumanized” writer of the scene of writing that Brodkey criticizes, but

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

*

the fully embodied human writer who uses not just the quill, but other tools, machines, and the body to think, to generate text, to revise.2 Our tendency to reduce the “scene of writing” to iconicity is encouraged by the sedimented history of our ambivalent cultural attitudes about work, and especially to intellectual work. This ambivalence is a significant problem in considering authors’ metaphorics of embodied labor, for it is then that authors make explicit connections to other kinds of physical activities including various kinds of work. Elaine Scarry notes that some seek to protect imaginative labor from being diminished by connecting it to other kinds of labor; others seek to protect the “real” problems of other kinds of labor from being diminished by comparing them to a “safe” world of imagination. She argues that while “both ‘protective’ impulses have legitimacy and generosity in them, both work in the end against the very thing that is being cared for” (1994, p. 87, n. 23). Such protective impulses make it more difficult to see how intellectual labor shares features with other kinds of work, even though it clearly differs in other respects.3 The problem of the relationship of intellectual labor to other kinds of labor is of long-standing but changing nature. Different historical periods have imagined both intellectual work and other kinds of work in different ways, often related to historical anxieties about each and about their relationships to one another. (See, for example, Borus, 1989; Bromell, 1993; Seltzer, 1992; Siskin, 1998; Weinstein, 1995.) Stories about embodied labor reflect authors’ sense of writing as part of their experiences as embodied beings. Scholarly work in cognitive linguistics offers considerable insight into how embodiment may structure experiences and communications about composing (see, for example, Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1986; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). According to an important line of argument, people figuratively comprehend the world by means of “image-schemas”—structured gestalts based on bodily experience. These “image-schemas” serve to organize our actions, perceptions, and conceptions according to recurring patterns or regularities. Metaphorical stories about writing as embodied labor draw on several image-schemas that are commonly used to describe many other ways of thinking and acting in addition to writing. These include imaging oneself as a container and putting things in and out of that container, as well as seeing containers as part of the material of the world, into which things can be inserted and from which they can be removed. These image-schemas also include seeing oneself as moving oneself or things along trajectories and transforming things.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 53

Many of the metaphorical stories about embodied labor that are used by authors are also used by other people as part of our shared ways of talking about thinking and negotiating the world. “Pushing,” “pulling,” “grappling with,” “groping for” ideas are all metaphors that are taken-for-granted in everyday discussions of thinking, yet reflect pervasive connections between embodied experiences that are tangible and activities that do not always result in tangible products. Metaphorical stories of embodied labor draw on these pervasive connections to bodily experience, but they also elaborate, augment, and extend them. * As they answer interviewers, writers often transpose dramas that take place at their writing desks to social sites like mines and refineries, where labor makes things change form, or makes things move up and down. Referring to his sense of discovery during writing, John Gardner told an interviewer for the Chicago Review: Sometimes what happens is that you poke your pick into a piece of respectable earth and silver shows up in an iron-ore vein and God knows where you’re heading. You follow it and you have to revise everything in the light of the silver. (1978, p. 83) While the “buried value” aspect of this mining metaphor appears congruent with the buried life of the mind, the metaphor presents rather different implications. What is buried in Gardner’s metaphor is not teeming life and truth, but raw material, material that is extractable from its matrix of possibilities (“respectable earth”). The writer writing is positioned as deep in prosaic labors, working with his pick in an “iron-ore vein.” Only as a result of excavating of material of modest value is he in the position to find the silver. The unexpected glint of silver is the focal point of Gardner’s story, but it is not the totality or even the most significant moment of the process of writing he is describing. It is simply positioned as the most exciting moment for him and, therefore, for us. The discovery of the silver is not the conclusion of the process; it is simply the trigger for yet more labor, a move to a different kind of process where the writer “follows the vein,” and revises past labors. For Gardner, writing is mining represents a story of long labor and occasional sudden excitement.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

54 Authors on Writing

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 55

I work … on the principle of refining low-grade ore. I assume that the first fifty ways that I try it are going to be wrong. I do it by a process of elimination. No matter how backbreaking the shoveling is and running it through the sluices and whatever you have to do to refine low-grade ore. You have the dubious consolation that what you get out of it is just as much real gold as it would be if you were just going around picking up nuggets off the ground. It’s just that it takes so damn much labor to get it. (1974, p. 33) This is a metaphor of grueling toil for value, one that ruefully comments on its own foregrounding of authorial effort. Like the stories of many writers, Dickey’s assumes that valuable elements hide in the mass of his early drafts, that these will eventually be revealed if he tries hard enough to get at them. Revelation is not enough, however. Dickey must transform his “ore” through an onerous process before its value will be recognized. Labor, transformation, and refinement for value are central entailments of writing is mining. Writing is mining is a frequent metaphor,4 enhanced by the many writers who declare that they must scratch, dig, or dredge to bring up the materials for their work.5 Writing is mining invites us to see the process of writing according to the entailments of the process of mining. According to the metaphorical story, writing and mining both involve searching in an external world for something of great value, something which is hidden in a mass. One can look for a long time without finding anything of value, or find the value unexpectedly. Writers and miners must explore their discoveries, only later refining the product. Writing and mining are exhausting, backbreaking work with a recalcitrant substance; the substance must be transformed in order to yield valuable, even invaluable results. One works until the value is exhausted. The activities are not pleasant, but the results are worthwhile. Writers speaking of themselves as prospectors with mining claims remind one that written things of value are also commodities, to be owned and traded for profit. Authors have “rights” that may need protection from “claimjumpers.” This metaphorical story thus reflects not only the activities of writing, but also the structure of the system by which this society rewards, or fails to reward, various achievements in writing.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Also using a mining metaphor—but in this case one focused in more detail on the labor of revision—is James Dickey, who told an interviewer for the New York Quarterly:

Writing is mining and many related stories are congruent with some of the basic assumptions of the “conduit metaphor,” a widespread metaphor that frames human communication as achieved by “the physical transfer of thoughts and feelings” (Reddy 1993, p. 167).6 The conduit metaphor makes intelligible the notion that communication is achieved by a sender “packaging” something physical—ideas—in a container and transferring it to a receiver, who unpacks the container. The implication is that communication does not change ideas but simply shifts their location. There is a strong spatial dimension to the conduit metaphor, but the general implication is of horizontal transfer (from person to person) rather than the “up/down” binary of writing is mining. The conduit metaphor does capture the implication that the material of a text can be an external entity. Writing is mining and its related metaphors emphasize that the entity—the product or text—is transformable. Writing is mining thus assumes the extractability of material, its inherent value as a commodity or the ability to transform it into value, and, ultimately, its transferability as part of a system of exchange. None of this is true of the buried life of the mind. Writing is mining and related metaphors frequently refer to up/down dimensions without implying that the matrix is within the writer; it may be in the world, in the text, or unspecified. The “core” of the process is not truth or mystery but value. Sometimes the locus of the mining is within the writer, but often it is not specified and may be presented as external. Importantly, identification of the “agent” may be fluid: while Gardner and Dickey represent themselves as miners, sometimes stories represent the “agent” as the text or the earth or leave it ambiguous and unspecified. Thus, while writing is mining shares some of the same entailments as the buried life of the mind, its emphasis is on labor. Writing is mining is only one manifestation of an interconnected pattern of figurative stories about the writing process that rely on the “up/down” binary. Spatial metaphors depict ideas as underground,7 subterranean,8 or buried.9 Writers may claim that there is a “very subterranean feeling” about their materials (Hortense Calisher, 1977), or that they come to “realize a poem is buried there” (Anne Sexton, 1977). They may assert that “first drafts … form way down inside” (Shelby Hearon, 1980), or that they “work from some deep down place” (Henry Miller, 1977). In coming up, ideas move from the subconscious to the conscious, from chaos to coherence (Eugene Ionesco, 1971). Metaphorics of labor such as writing as mining combine this spatiality, externality, and process with temporal elements. They regis-

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

56 Authors on Writing

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 57

I think something quite accidental disturbs something else. It’s like digging in the sand and hitting a remaining land-mine or something …. almost any unexpected little thing may disturb something inside one … what I had seen and heard did arouse or precipitate something. (1966, p. 35) This is the first of a series of metaphors that use “explode” to evoke the creation of energy. Blunden moves from one kind of labor to another, but his emphasis is not on the final value of the goal (Gardner’s “silver”), but on the nature of the change in labor practices: the energy. This energized labor process is a central theme of stories related to writing is mining and its emphasis on spatiality, externality, and process. Wilson Harris, for example, describes a similar process of the creation of energized labor. Harris indicates that he wrote The Secret Ladder after hearing about a friend being shot. That set off a charge…. It’s as if that kind of charge is there, written into the soil, and it goes on deepening itself and deepening itself. This is not an intellectual process. At a sudden point it seems to come out, as if the resources have suddenly arrived. Like Marsden, Black Marsden, he’s arrived, he’s charged! He’s charged with some kind of strange wisdom … The novel then runs as far as it can go with that kind of intensity and density … (1981, p. 55). Harris, like Blunden, draws upon themes of depth, strength, and intensity to convey the impact of energy.10 The stress on labor is also revealed by metaphors contrasting two kinds of labor in related up/down metaphors about ideas surging forth under pressure, such as eruptions. Pressure sets the stage for ideas to “burst forth,” as they do for Erica Jong. It erupts like a volcano … in a subterranean way. And when it comes time for you to write a poem, the whole thing explodes. (1974, p. 24)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

ter labor by reference to activities over time and to work as the creation of energy, privileging different kinds of intellectual labor. This is evident in a comment by Edmund Blunden. Like Gardner, Blunden’s mundane laboring is transformed, but directly into energized labor:

Many stories of energized writing, like Jong’s, indicate a contrast or shift in labor practices from slow building up of ideas and texts to energized composing. Some, like Jong, mention “eruption,”11 others texts that “explode,”12 “burst” or “surge” forth.13 Some writers simply refer to mounting “pressure” seeking release.14 “Pressures” and “explosions” are not stories of effortlessness, but stories about labor—not only the labor of the moment of bursting forth (the volcano is not “passive” in its eruption), but also the massive slow labor of the material forces building up within the earth. Metaphorical stories of explosions and eruptions are significantly connected to people’s experience of themselves according to the “image-schema” of a container. In The Body in the Mind (1987), Mark Johnson contends that that “containment” and “boundedness” are pervasive features of our bodily experience. We experience ourselves as three-dimensional beings, but also as three-dimensional containers: We put things into ourselves, and things emerge. We envelope things and are enveloped in things. We also experience ourselves as manipulating things (sometimes containers) in a world of other containers: We put things down and pick them up. We get things and move them. We put things in and out of containers. Johnson argues that this container schema influences our understanding of reasoning. The “up/down” and “in/out” binaries that often structure metaphorical stories about writing—and particularly metaphorical stories of embodied labor—are not claims about interiority as the fount of creativity or about alterity as its experience, but claims about embodiment and work. Failure to make this distinction—to assume that all metaphors referring to these boundaries are claims about the buried life or claims about creative moments—may be one reason for the strength of the metanarrative at the expense of the multiple micronarratives about writing practices. Related metaphors direct attention to the slow process of prewriting that is also labor. Charles Simic discusses a poem he did not “begin,” but rather registered its presence in a slow development or potential: The poem didn’t “start.” The experience was with me as far back as I can remember—or more precisely, the nagging image of just such an interior. Periodically, it would surface, and I would catch a glimpse of it and receive a jolt, a vague sense of dread, of premonition … (1977, p. 279)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

58 Authors on Writing

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 59

The beginnings can be something without words, in the mind. Even before it is ready to change into language a poem may begin to assert its buried life in the mind with wordless surges of rhythm and counter-rhythm. (1974 Fortunato, p. 31) Kunitz claims that his poems may originate without language, without words, but with emotion, feeling, pressure (1974 Fortunato, 1983). His metaphorical story of spatiality and temporality makes explicit reference to a “buried life of the mind”—the most explicit connection in my corpus of interviews—but it is also a story of labor. (Chapter 5, on discursive sociality, will discuss the image of the poem as alive.) * It is perhaps because of our investment in the metanarrative of the buried life of the mind that we fail to notice the counter-narratives of a multitude of metaphorical stories about authoring as labor that are not congruent with it. For example, spatial dimensions are significant in many stories of authorial labor, but only a few of them are congruent with the buried life. Writing is Journeying. The metaphor of the journey is always a story of labor, and common among descriptions of authorial activity. Duration is emphasized. Transformation is implied (both author and text changing in the journey), though not as dramatically suggestive as found with writing is mining. The thing of value may be the journey itself, the resulting transformations. Movement into unknown locations, movement past impediments and obstacles, and sudden moments of excitement are possible. Spatiality is central to writing as journeying, but not the up/down binary of the buried life or writing is mining; rather, authors evoke distance. Most journey or travel metaphors are used to emphasize one of four main points: (1) starting without knowing what one is going to write (where one is going to go) or being “lost” as part of the journey;15 (2) knowing what the final passage or “goal” of the writing is, without knowing the journey itself;16 (3) describing problems created during the work as obstacles, impediments, or gaps that interfere with movement;17 (4) describing solutions to writing problems as unexpected discoveries.18

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Stanley Kunitz uses the same central themes in describing slow “surges” by which his poems register their creation, with specific reference to “the buried life” of the poem:

Writing is Cooking. Cooking images typically involve putting things together, using heat to transform things, and waiting for things to be finished. The metaphor of cooking is used to emphasize the transformation of material over time, usually through temperature change, and often without the author’s full attention. Almost all cooking metaphors serve this purpose.19 Writing is Reproduction. The metaphor of reproduction is a story of labor not always visible to the observer. Authors frequently convey a sense of processes of labor through metaphors of reproduction, conception, gestation, and birth. They compare writing to mating, engendering, fertilization, breeding, and spawning, sometimes specifying biological specifics such as semen and sperm to signal conception or germination.20,21 They talk about periods of development by reference of incubation, gestation, pregnancy, and brooding.22 They refer to their “growing” text as an embryo or fetus.23 They claim that writing is like giving birth.24 They may say it is like laying or hatching eggs.25 They refer to textual problems as miscarriages, abortions, and stillbirths.26 Duration and transformation are emphasized by authors’ reproduction metaphors, as well as spatiality in respect to inside/outside. About half of reproduction metaphors are used to represent duration and development. The gestation metaphors in particular present the author as agent—not as passive—yet the process of development is not under conscious control. About half of the reproduction metaphors evoke a dramatic transition from “inside” to “outside” with reference to “birth.”27 Some of these metaphors are also relevant to the discussion in the next chapter about metaphorics of discursive sociality, since they define the text as a living, animate being, though I am putting off discussion of that aspect of the metaphorical story until that chapter. Writing is Gardening. Authors frequently use metaphors of gardening or metaphors in which ideas or texts are plants, with an emphasis on preparation and nurturance.28,29 Marguerite Yourcenar likens herself to the planting bed, providing a nurturing environment for growing ideas which she compares to sprouting plants. The writer must soak up the subject completely, as a plant soaks up water, until the ideas are ready to sprout. (1984, p. 114) Most of the metaphors portraying texts as growing like plants represent particularly the beginning stages of writing—preparing the ground,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

60 Authors on Writing

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 61

I think the end is implicit in the beginning. It must be. If that isn’t there in the beginning, you don’t know what you’re working toward. You should have a sense of a story’s shape and form and its destination, all of which is like a flower inside a seed. (1985 Haller, p. 345) Katherine Anne Porter finds her stories to be stimulated first by her experiences or observations, as if seeds are planted at that time, but take a long time to germinate. She reports that the inception of “Flowering Judas” was an expression on a girl’s face, seen long before. It doesn’t matter, it just takes a little—a tiny seed. Then it takes root, and it grows. It’s an organic thing. That story had been on my mind for years, growing out of this one little thing that happened in Mexico. It was forming and forming in my mind, until one night I was quite desperate…. I knew the time had come to write the story. (1977, p. 153) Like plants, texts emphasize gradual maturation, starting small and developing gradually, and eventually—with proper nourishment— growing, blossoming, and thriving. Networks of intertextual references shape comparisons between composing and gardening. Writers are also readers, and frequently they mention having heard similar metaphors from other authors. Griselda Gambaro, in commenting on her own composing, reports that Uruguayan author Felisberto Hernandez said …. that at a certain moment he would feel a tiny plant take root within him, but he did not know how the plant would grow, or if it would be hardy. He knew only that he had to care for it. Those are not his exact words but that is how it feels to me, also. I know something has been born. (1985, p. 62) Metaphors about seeds, sprouts, and delicacy in growth reference collaborative forces of nature and nurture in producing the text. * Metaphors of revision tend to be specifically focused on labor. Rather than portraying themselves receiving gifts or listening to

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

planting seeds, germination, and the first emerging shoots. Eudora Welty indicates that the “seed” contains the potential of the text.

the heavens, writers often compare and contrast themselves as revisers to other kinds of workers, especially artistic and craft workers. Earlier in this chapter, in the section on writing is mining, I provided examples of John Gardner depicting revision as the outcome of following the glint of silver and James Dickey presenting a process of revision-as-reformulating low-grade ore into value. But many metaphors focused on activities of revision refer to less industrial labors, work with small moves: artistry, surgery, gardening, or sewing and tailoring. Variations on the theme of molding, casting, and sculpting demonstrate different ways of depicting revision and reformulation. Many writers put revision at the center of their regular writing processes, describing their media as malleable, pliable, something to push and pull, form and reform.30 Laura Chester finds the process sensuous. I type draft after draft almost obsessively until that first soft clay shapes itself into the poem it has to become…. I love to feel the poem as a malleable substance that I can push and reshape on the page. (1977, p. 75) Others “(re)shape” and “(re)mold” the text.31 These procedures seem less mediated than casting, less bound than chiseling. They emphasize remolding the same material into a new shape, often one which has little resemblance to the original form, rather than adding or deleting material. Revising here is reformulation.32 The possibility of major reformulation during revising also appears through analogies to the process of casting material. Ivan Doig’s text is a “hot, molten mass” (1987). Jessamyn West only wants to reread a text that is “molten,” with the possibility of revision (1976). James Dickey (1979) likes his text “fluid,” and Frank O’Connor complains that after only 10 or 12 lines his story has “ceased to be fluid … you can’t model it” (1977, p. 168). But John Fowles considers his text only “solid” with the final casting—publication. I love it when a story is still … changeable, still fluid, and you can take it anywhere, do anything with it. Once it’s printed, it’s set and frozen, like a bronze cast of a sculptor. You can’t shape it any more… (1977, p. 50) Notice that Fowles’s metaphor, like several in the section of writing is mining, alerts us to the nature of change in labor practices, in this case

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

62 Authors on Writing

caused by change in the nature of the material being manipulated: from fluidity to solidity. At revision the material is external and its major transformations are complete. If there are problems in the text, those comparing writing to casting suggest that the casting can be done again.33 These metaphors accentuate the possibility of “reheating” material to return to a generative state. John Ashbery uses the casting metaphor to draw attention to the power of early drafts on final products. Discussing his poetic processes, Ashbery indicates that his impelling initial lines … often don’t fit into the texture of the poem; it’s almost like some lost wax or other process where the initial armature or whatever gets scrapped in the end. (1974, p. 14) The “lost wax process” to which Ashbery refers is a procedure for making castings: a metal mold is built up over a shaped core of wax; when the mold is heated, the wax melts and drains away, leaving the mold ready to shape other materials like jewelry or the “bronze cast” of Fowles’s sculpture. The wax is essential to the process, unnecessary to the product. The image of the lost wax process legitimates the compelling force on a text material that is gone. Casting represents dramatic change in labor practice at different stages, with possibilities for later-stage reformulation. Sculpting appears to offer few such options. William Goyen describes himself styling a statue. I generally just write just straight ahead … If I [look back] I get caught back there revising … It must be like chiseling a sculpture; if the sculptor does too fine a work too soon on what’s big, heavy, gross work, then it’s out of balance somewhere. I should imagine that he has to do all different phases of gross work, and then finer and finer and finer detail … (1980, p. 229) Goyen also signals change in his labor practice according to the material and the stage of working it. Since early in the process the larger shape of the text is blocked out irrevocably, his decisions then are not open to significant revision. Goyen thus suggests the existence of a real yet unrealized text as a whole, a text which could be irredeemably damaged by the indelible strokes of premature detail. Goyen represents his revising method as cyclical, working through of the text with first large moves, then small. Others also carve, chisel, or chip at their texts.34

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 63

64 Authors on Writing

I write first drafts with great speed but the older I get (a familiar observation, I know) I rewrite more and more … I’m more an oil painter now. More deliberate. A good deal less certain. (1971, p. 338) Alberto Moravia speaks about his writing process as a kind of painting which builds up layer by layer. Each book is worked over several times. I like to compare my method with that of painters centuries ago, proceeding, as it were, from layer to layer. The first draft is quite crude, far from being perfect, by no means finished; although even then, even at that point, it has its final structure, the form is visible. After that I rewrite it as many times— apply as many “layers”—as I feel to be necessary. (1977, p. 220) Harry Mark Petrakis indicates similarly that with his constant revisions, “each layer added is a layer which will change the shape and totality of the whole” (1977, p. 99). Lawrence Durrell’s successive layers of paint provide two or more “levels” of reading, one superficial, the other more enigmatic. He wishes to cover earlier layers of paint, but not too thoroughly, so as not to obscure interesting depths in the text. Paint is added, then, partly removed to reveal part of what is underneath: Just like a house-painter; he puts on three, four coats. And then it starts to rain, and you see the second coat coming through. A sort of palimpsest. (1973, p. 66) These writers, and others who describe revising as re-painting35 or retouching,36 also signal changes in working practices according to stage. The essence of the text is not necessarily hidden or buried in the draft, waiting to be discovered and brought to light. It is realized in the text, though perhaps “crudely.” Thinking of writing as “layering” allows an open-ended series of changes and reformulations. The final product may change drastically at any stage, and thus greatly enhance the richness and texture of the initial sketch. Writers may change either the “essence” or the “effect” of the work at many stages of the composing process, as long as they are not using water colors.37

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Some writers compare revising to painting, with layering rather than manipulating. Gore Vidal claims that he has altered his rewriting process over the years, like a painter changing materials.

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 65

Finally, when I got within twenty pages of the end, I realized I still hadn’t delivered this revolution. I had a lot of threads, and I’d overlooked this one. So then I had to go back and lay in the preparation for the revolution. Putting in that revolution was like setting in a sleeve. Do you know what I mean? Do you sew? I mean I had to work that revolution in on the bias, had to ease out the wrinkles with my fingers. (1978, p. 155) Didion’s analogy draws attention to the divisibility of her text, in contrast to the more integrated or unitary forms suggested by revising as painting, casting, or sculpting. When texts consist of segments, overlooking the ends of an important “thread” results merely in an awkward but manageable construction problem. Major new sections can still be inserted, even as the text nears completion. Didion’s sewing solution implies a need for craft, for skill, but not necessarily for the artistry of a painter or sculptor. Lawrence Durrell also uses an analogy to sewing when he describes his revising. At one point he says: “the construction gave me some trouble, and I let in a hemstitch here, a gusset there… .” (1977, p. 267). A hemstitch is an ornamental stitch which involves pulling out a number of parallel threads, then stitching groups of the cross-threads together. A “gusset” implies a more direct way to solve a “construction” problem, since it consists of a small, triangular piece of material which is inserted in an item of clothing to reinforce it or make a better fit. It may be necessary to insert a gusset if a garment is to look good, be strong, and fit well, but undoubtedly it requires difficult and close work on detail, work that is tedious and demanding.38 Durrell might describe such revision as “tailoring,” since in the same interview he uses the term “retailor” to indicate a kind of revising that he finds himself unable to do. He says, “I know it’s a wrong attitude, because some people can, with patience, resurrect and retailor things. But I can’t …” (1977, p. 271). These and similar metaphors connect the experiences of Didion, Durrell, and other writers with the activities of tailors and seamstresses and other craftspersons who stick with slow boring tasks so that something will eventually function well.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Revising also can be positioned as craft work to fix problems, as suggested by metaphors of sewing and tailoring. For example, Joan Didion had to insert a substantial new section into the manuscript of A Book of Common Prayer:

When Didion says she overlooked one “thread” of many, she suggests that numerous places in the text need small changes, apparently rather limited and undemanding. This view focuses on “tying off” and “clipping” bits that are loose and unattractive. But failure is of potentially larger consequence, leaving seams torn, sleeves falling off, texts unraveling. The importance of this kind of revising is reinforced by Nelson Algren’s related image of final revision as tying up knots: While I’m finishing a book it’s a little bit like tying a lot of knots that keep slipping and you’re just impatient to get it done. And then you have to go all the way back in, in order to tie it up, and you find you just can’t tie it up at the end. You have to go all the way back and tie it up. (1964, p. 324) Like Didion, Algren implies that problems of revising are primarily technical difficulties, that one must keep finding loose ends, tying off knots, returning when knots have “slipped.”40 Since the strings or ropes or threads that Algren is trying to knot go deep into the texture of the text, their tying is important—inadequate tying could lead to disintegration. Small, apparently pedestrian activities may have big consequences. The kinds of problems to be fixed can also imply mechanical or construction problems. Mechanics’ solutions make things work or run. Fred Chappell says revising is like finding needed parts and repairing an old car. [Y]ou work at it long enough, and it becomes so impersonal and so much an object that you’re working on … it’s like a car you’ve been trying to get to run, an old Hupmobile, that you’ve been looking for all the parts for, for the past thirty years, and, one of these days, you know that you’re going to take it out on the highway. (1973, p. 43) Robert Creeley compares some poets’ revision to a kind of mechanical aesthetics: A poet say like Louis Zukovsky has endless revisions upon his initial writing. It’s like tuning up a motor. He really isn’t satisfied until all the elements of the statement are for him utterly working in congruence. (1974, p. 208) Mechanic’s solutions suggest the need for attention to small problems, attention to precision and intermeshing of parts. This kind of meta-

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

66 Authors on Writing

phor is frequent in revision discourse. Marguerite Yourcenar (1984) and Maxine Kumin (1983) both speak of tightening and loosening. “It wasn’t a matter of rewriting but simply of tightening up all the bolts, so to speak … tightening and loosening are jobs for a mechanic,” says Yourcenar (p. 184).41 Ann Beattie complains that she has “never been able to overhaul a story” (1987), while Andrew Suknaski (1988) mentions “fine tuning.” Conrad Aiken (1977) speaks of retooling and tinkering. For others, revising is “fixing” the text–patching (Christopher Isherwood, 1977 Scobie), shoring it up (Toni Morrison, 1984), or repairing it (John A. Williams, 1973). Sometimes it is making the text “match, and latch, and connect” (Alan Sillitoe, 1981).42 Philip Whalen says that he has “got to bang on it somehow to straighten it out” (1978, p. 37).43,44 Many different metaphors represent “cutting” text. John Brunner likens his writing process to gardening, his revising to pruning an ornamental plant. Organizing [a plot] is akin to training and pruning an espalier. Given a suitable plant—a promising idea—one must display it on the available trellis: the printed page. If it tends to wander randomly, it must be disciplined back to the desired shape … (1978, p. 319) David Jones (1966) speaks of having crawled “out on limbs,” and pruning them. William Goyen says that he will “cut back, and take what is still living there” (1980, p. 231).45 “Cut” assumes dramatic meaning when Henry Miller says that he goes “to work on [his text] with an axe” (1977), or when Hugh Leonard remarks that he finds cutting difficult when he “cannot get a wedge in because each line fits into the next” (1973, p. 196). Alex Haley states that he “act[s] like a surgeon” when he is writing, focusing on the careful delicate work, even constantly taking showers and washing his hands. “I like to do first drafts at night, when I’m tired, and then do the surgical work in the morning when I’m sharp …” (1977, p. 451). Christopher Isherwood describes his revising as amputation (1977 Scobie). Donald Hall explains that “the process of peeling away sharpens what’s there. It doesn’t clarify it, it sharpens it” (1973, p. 13).46 Authors pare,47 chop,48 hack, slash, and strip (down) their texts. James Tate (1977) “brandishes” his “razor,” while Herbert Gold (1973) goes over his first draft to cut out “the loose hairs and revise.” These stories portray texts

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 67

68 Authors on Writing

as organic and stress the need to separate useless material to shape and enhance the significant.

Pulitzer Prize winner and composition theorist Donald Murray (1978) identifies two different ways of seeing revision, which emphasize two aspects of labor. “Internal revision” concerns writers’ own developing understanding of what they are trying to say. “External revision” refers to conveying that meaning to others. This distinction is, of course, provisional since acts to clarify meaning for writers may also clarify it for their audiences, and acts designed to convey meaning to others may also reveal and refine it for the writer. Nonetheless, Murray’s terminology focuses deserved attention on the meaning or significance for the author of any particular writing act and may shed light on an interesting feature of many authors’ metaphorical stories for late-stage and surface-level revision: their tendency to deprecate it. Some instances may even imply that writers are disrespectful of the value of such revising when they speak of banging or tinkering. Other terms reflect ambivalence, such as when writers mention having to chew, diddling away, jiggling, niggling, picking, worrying, whacking, fiddling, fooling around, fussing, messing, monkeying, mucking, playing, toying, and knocking (into shape and on the head).49 Some writers illustrate their self-deprecation through the image of a somewhat bedraggled writer-as-dog: [With a poem] … one sort of throws it away and goes and digs it up and tosses it into the air and finishes it off or doesn’t finish it off. (Stevie Smith, 1966, p. 225) It makes you feel like an ineffective bulldog, you keep worrying it and worrying it … (Jim Harrison, 1988, p. 74) Much … will have begun … earlier … and [been] worried and slowly chewed on and left for dead many times in the interim. (William Gass, 1983 LeClair, p. 158) Such rhetorical expressions reflect a tendency to discredit minor, surface, or late-stage revising activities, an attitude which is seldom expressed in reformulation stories. These different stories do not describe “the same” process in different ways, but instead delineate different aspects of revising and different

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

*

“takes” on the same revising moments. Transforming ore, casting, painting, and sculpting suggest that writers go back into the text to rework its inorganic substance, to reformulate it. Dickey, transforming ore for gold, break apart his drafts into their constituent elements in order to find and transform the most valuable. Ashbery and others who cast and recast return their drafts to the amorphous, liquid state of beginnings and generativity. Moravia and other painters may alter dramatically the texture and form of their texts. Chester and others who work with clay-like materials may continue to remold their texts many times. Goyen reshapes his text cyclically as he chisels. Thus, a significant proportion of metaphorical stories for revising indicate that writers see themselves making substantial, laborious changes during revising. It also appears that these metaphorical stories about reformulation may form a harmonious group: they all imply a unitary text, rather than one composed of discrete parts which can be handled separately. The intention seems to be primarily to produce an aesthetic commodity, beautiful, useful, and valuable. Writers use a related set of congruent stories about reformulation to suggest they value it as a way to discover, construct, shape, and develop what they have to say. In contrast, stories of restructuring, reducing, and refining evoke revising as a process of small scale and later stage changes. They offer interpretations of the nature of revising which differ from those suggested by reformulation stories, yet seem in harmony with one another. Compared to reformulation stories, these stories do not appear to place as much aesthetic or commodity value on either the writing process or the written text. The tasks described are more those of craft and rule, rather than those of heavy labor or art. They make fewer demands on physical strength and artistic talent. The products are not so valuable. These stories stress the surface of the text; they tend to be stylistic rather than formal, local rather than structural. They often reflect Gore Vidal’s ambivalent attitude: “Rewriting … is a slow grinding business” (Gore Vidal, 1974, p. 157). This sort of revision seems analogous to the work performed by members of craft unions rather than industrial unions. One might suspect that these stories support now discredited “stage” theories of creativity and writing, but the situation is more complex than that. Taken as a whole, metaphorical stories about revising as labor do imply a set of relations linking the nature of the material, the “stage” of revision, and preferred methods of revision. The material to be revised may be at one time molten, malleable, and flexible. It is possible to reshape it and change it totally. Rewriting of material in

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 69

such a state tends to be represented by metaphorical stories about hard labor and artistic processes. At another time when the material is still somewhat flexible, alterations can still be made. The writer’s attention, however, is directed to the fit and functioning among parts, not to the totality of the text. Revising material in such a state tends to be represented by stories about craft and mechanical work like sewing, tailoring, tying, or fixing. When the text seems to be relatively “solid,” writers “cut,” focusing either on the material to be saved or that to be eliminated. When the “surface” of the text seems to have “hardened,” at least temporarily, writers engage in craft work again, as they “polish” or “touch up.”50 It would be wrong, however, to put these together as indications of a “superstory” that would valorize a stage theory of revising in which all writers move from work on larger issues to finer detail. The authors talk about the entire range of these activities as “revision.” Individual writers do not claim to engage first in reformulation and restructuring activities, then in surface work. In fact, taken as a whole, the stories reveal what close observational studies also suggest—that writing is a cyclical, recursive process. The states authors describe in their stories may occur and reoccur as writers complete their texts, though in general the movement of texts is from malleability to solidification, from working on substance and shape to working on surface. The movement is partly an artifact of time and constraint, of the exigencies of desire and situation that lead writers to abandon their texts. The powerful interruptions of both editing and earthquakes (see Chapter 8) can push writers into reformulation or surface work; but even more powerful forces of situation lead writers to sense the need for completion of text. The prominence of these images of externality is to some degree problematic. Reddy has described how reliance on the conduit metaphor and related images of ideas as physical objects can restrict people’s understanding of communication situations. Moreover, the implied distinction between form and content is an artificial one, since the two are seldom as independent, separable, or extricable as many statements about them imply. Despite such limitations, writers constantly use images of externalized, material texts, suggesting that they may be useful or even necessary for writers to understand and carry out acts of revision. Perhaps to manipulate language in revision, one must be able to envision ideas as “separate” in some way from the words used to express them. If not, one may not be able to change the words or relationship

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

70 Authors on Writing

of words in order to better express or even get at the ideas. It is possible that such “inaccurate,” “inadequate” metaphors are what enable writers to succeed by means of “as-if” thinking. People write and revise as if externalized metaphors can reflect composing experiences, as, of course, they do. Problematic as such images may seem, metaphors indicating some type of externality may, in fact, be central to conceptions of writing.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor 71

5

Metaphors of discursive sociality offer an image of writing processes dramatically different from that of the buried life of the mind. Metaphors of discursive sociality situate the author and text in continuing engagement with an interactive and social field of discourse that extends over time and space. They position authors’ texts as alive or their characters as co-authors—rather than focusing back on hidden origins of thought. Pervasive and powerful, metaphors of discursive sociality reveal the primacy of discourse as the source and field of activity in composing. Were it not for the degree to which our investment in the metanarrative of the buried life focuses our attention on interiority and alterity, the centrality of their claims would not need to be stressed. Overcoming our fascination with the metanarrative of the buried life can allow us to hear other narratives that emphasize embodied labor and discursive sociality. I argue in Chapter 2 that metaphorical stories suggestive of alterity may be re-read as instead placing discourse at the center of the writing scene. In one such story, Charles Johnson attributes agency to language itself when he says, “It’s like a trap door, the language drops you down to this whole other level of seeing” (1987, p. 259). I read this metaphor to suggest that it is while manipulating language that Johnson comes to new ways of knowing. In another story, Henry Miller describes moments when his composing was “dictated”: “Someone takes over and you just copy out what is being said” (1977, p. 171). But the rest of the passage situates Miller in full engagement with language (“I was grappling with ideas … I was saturated with it” (1977, p. 171). The buried life metanarrative encourages us to see this as a moment of alterity; I read it to demonstrate dynamic discursivity. In the third metaphor, Wilson Harris talks about the “voices” that 72

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality

surround him as he writes. His metaphor positions him as embedded in a field of discourse, not a scene of interiority and alterity. So foregrounding the dynamic discursivity we know to be central to writing can allow us to read more fully even metaphors that might seem congruent with the metanarrative of the buried life of the mind. I frame the argument of this chapter with Mikhail Bakhtin’s theories of dialogism. Thinking about the scene of composing as dialogic and interactive focuses attention on the multiple voices and implicit dialogism of metaphors of discursive sociality. I first examine metaphors in which authors describe their composing as negotiating with their texts as living beings, having voices, arguing, wanting things. Second, I examine closely the metaphor I call Characters as Co-Authors, in which authors describe themselves as negotiating with characters that make demands and live “autonomously.” * Authors using metaphors of discursive sociality in effect align themselves with what might be seen as a “Bakhtinian” view of composing texts. Mikhail Bakhtin (1984, 1986) argues for the constant interconnection and appropriation of discourse by those who participate in using it. Individuals do not produce meaning in a monologue. Composing is not the ability to access the buried life of the mind. Rather than meaning being produced by an isolated individual, it must be created in dialogue. Human agency is situated in a system of structures and conventions already in place—in genres, in styles, in ways of using language. There is always choice within those constraints; by inflecting those, and in that sense, people can speak as individuals (see White 1987/88). Bakhtin argues that all speakers are positioned in a network of language because they are always responding to already existing discourses. He states, … any speaker is himself a respondent to a greater or lesser degree. He is not, after all, the first speaker, the one who disturbs the eternal silence of the universe. And he presupposes not only the existence of the language system he is using, but also the existence of preceding utterances—his own and others’—with which his given utterance enters into one kind of relation or another (builds on them, polemicizes with them, or simply presumes they are already known to the listener). Any utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of other utterances. (1986, p. 69)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 73

Bakhtin’s theorizing of dialogism is often used to consider how people use texts to make meaning and, in particular, to see operations of intertextuality. I am arguing that it is particularly useful in situating composing and its metaphors of discursive sociality because it emphasizes the writer within a world of discourse, responding to as well as contributing to these discourses. Bakhtin reminds us that the writing of texts—as well as the socially shared discourses talking about that intellectual labor—is part of a history of discursivity: all prose discourses respond to, engage with, inflect previous utterances. Inflecting genres, narratives, arguments with individual utterances is an activity both creative and constrained. He argues, Utterances are not indifferent to one another, and are not selfsufficient; they are aware of and mutually reflect one another. These mutual reflections determine their character. Each utterance is filled with echoes and reverberations of other utterances to which it is related … Each utterance refutes, affirms, supplements, and relies on the others, presupposes them to be known, and somehow takes them into account. (1986, p. 91) Bakhtin’s description of an utterance that “is filled with echoes and reverberations of other utterances,” that “refutes, affirms, supplements, and relies on the others,” theorizes the writing situation that metaphors of discursive sociality describe. Rather than positioning an essence of human expression in interiority and alterity, dialogism situates it in interaction. Bakhtin argues, Human thought becomes genuine thought, that is, an idea, only under conditions of living contact with another and alien thought, a thought embodied in someone else’s voice, that is in someone else’s consciousness expressed in discourse. At that point of contact between voice-consciousnesses the idea is born and lives. (1984, p. 88) Metaphors of discursive sociality talk about social interaction at the moment of writing, when writers talk to themselves, to their texts, to their characters, and they find that all of these sources and an entire history of texts talk back to them. Metaphors of discursive sociality demonstrate writers writing through a dialogic process, inserting themselves in and responding to a preexisting field of discourse sedimented

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

74 Authors on Writing

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 75

with history, responding to social exigencies, pushing at language through their own and others’ voices.

The passage by Wilson Harris quoted in Chapter 2 is a particularly apt introduction to a “Bakhtinian” notion of conceptions of composing. It emphasizes both the living textuality that characterizes metaphors of discursive sociality, yet, by its use of the metaphor of “voices,” it demonstrates also the kind of discursive interactivity found in such metaphors. I quote it again here. Harris says, … the novels you write as well as the novels that other people write, have their own life. They speak to you. Now when that kind of speech is so haunting, that constitutes a development in the novel [being worked on] because the novels of the past are addressing you, are pushed on by some things you see, you are astonished at seeing them. In some degree, they’re already residing in what has gone before…. it’s as if there is a chorus. This is one way of putting it, and certain voices are more to the fore, though the other voices are there. Then in another novel, the other voices come to the fore. You have to be attentive not only to what you’re doing but in some degree to what is coming back. (1981, p. 61) Harris’s metaphor situates his own and other people’s novels as speaking to one another, speaking in a “chorus,” and in this speaking, influencing the development of the new work. While the new writing is connected to (“haunting”) sedimented histories, those histories in their interaction with the writer produce new things (“you are astonished at seeing them”). Central to metaphors of discursive sociality are claims that the novels “have their own life,” and “speak to you.” Metaphors of discursive sociality find significance at the point of productive utterance, at the level of discursive interaction and development. Metaphors of discursive sociality show how writers see themselves living in a world of discourse, on the alert for discursive occasions, often listening for them. Bernard Spencer when asked what prompts a poem, replies: I suddenly detect myself in a situation, out of which comes a so-far-unformulated excitement, and I suppose all poets must feel or

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Negotiating with texts

learn to know this. It is sort of like a signal flashing on, or some particular kind of bell going. They know that there is a poem there, if they look attentively…. I rather like what a Greek poet said (it was Seferis) that you meet poems like people and certain kinds of poems in different places. A certain kind you may run into in a railway station, you can expect them there, and other kinds in, shall we say, the bathroom…. poems are almost hanging about. (1966, p. 237) Spencer suggests a ghostly world of potential poems. The poet, walking through that world, encounters potential poems everywhere, “meets them like people,” lets them “hang about.” But they importune, also. This metaphor of discursive sociality describes a writing life, where authors and texts wait to interact with one another. Metaphors of discursive sociality are often framed in terms of authors living with their texts, in a world of their texts, with metaphors of “saturation” or “immersion,” flagging the author’s emphasis on duration as well as dynamic discursivity. According to William Goyen, he is “saturated” by the “whole world” of which he writes. It is not merely his text that is alive, but the entire discursive scene. I plan quite a bit. But I’m not too aware of it. That is, I’ve not got it all down, but I’ve got a good deal of it thought through or felt through, before I begin writing. So that the whole world of it is very much alive and urgent for me. I’m surrounded by it—almost like a saturating scent. I feel it like a heat. The world that I’m going to write has already been created, somehow, in physical sensation before I go about writing it, shaping it, organizing it. My writing begins physically, in flesh ways. The writing process, for me, is the business of taking it from the flesh state into the spiritual, the letter, the Word. (1976, p. 99, emphasis in original) Goyen’s story captures the urgency of his writing process in the kind of interactive way I am trying to emphasize. He implies moving back and forth with physical, sensual moves to transform the novel from one way of being to another. His metaphors emphasize its claims on him as well as his control of it. I argue that this dynamism, this interaction, this sense of discourse as a place of fecundity and animation, is what emerges from metaphors of discursive sociality. Authors describe their texts as alive, or coming alive in interaction with them.1 (According to many authors, things that come alive can also die.2) For these authors, their texts not only

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

76 Authors on Writing

speak for themselves, they move and change for themselves. A novelist may begin to write, only to find, like Harry Mark Petrakis, that “the life which the work itself presents takes on a movement and direction of its own” (1977, p. 98). Texts often seem to present themselves, articulate ideas, make suggestions, make rules, dictate, insist, and make demands on their authors.3 The texts themselves function as co-authors—as metaphors of discursive sociality. A significant number of authors suggest that their texts go even further than that: they write themselves.4 Speaking about his novel Ragtime, E. L. Doctorow claims that the novel made its own rules, its own demands, and by the last third of it had developed complete inevitability (1977, p. 39). Ann Petry describes one of her stories as a work that “almost wrote itself … The form finds itself” (1973, pp. 156, 159). Ruth Stone describes a poem that “knew itself already. I didn’t know it” (1975, p. 56). Authors often talk about their texts, words, and ideas as entities that want things, that seek to realize themselves.5 Alan Dugan reports: … I work in and out of notebooks … taking a poem out of a notebook and retranscribing it in order to see what the poem wants to be. (1973, p. 96) William Styron uses a related metaphor with somewhat different and dangerous meaning when he says “novels strangle with murderous hands” (1978, p. 277). Styron’s metaphorical story resonates with another of his evaluations of writing: “Let’s face it, writing is hell” (1977, p. 271). The life that a text assumes may therefore be a violent or inimical force—less an alter ego than an antagonist. Texts can become independent, taking over, going their own way, getting out of the author’s control.6 Worse, texts can choose their own authors, force themselves upon them, even take control of the authors.7 This set of stories about vigorous and animated texts cannot be interpreted as simply a displacement of subjectivity. Rather, foregrounding process, place, time, and alternative voices and perspectives, metaphors of sociality emphasize continuing engagement at the scene of utterance. They negotiate patterns of tension and constraint, freedom and convention, that inflect everyday experiences of composing. They portray composing as an interrelational rather than a solitary act. This interconnected body of metaphorical stories emphasizes that writers see their composing as engaging with a materiality of

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 77

78 Authors on Writing

You start it and it wants to go another way; you resist, and very often it goes its own way in spite of you. But it had better not go entirely its own way, because then you’re out of control. (Wallace Stegner, 1985, p. 125) Metaphors of discursive sociality present composing as a process of negotiation with languages that will not cooperate, that frustrate, that enable. Some of the most interesting metaphors of texts as animated beings occur when writers use images of their texts as living creatures. The texts may appear metaphorically as animals, birds, fish, or human beings. Hearing the arrival of the bird/poem “rustle in the bushes,” for example, Denise Levertov readies herself accordingly (1974). Donald Hall finds most poems to “begin with the sudden gift of words, just winging into the head” (1974, p. 76). Patricia Highsmith observes, “An idea just sort of zooms in like a bird out of the sky” (1977, p. 33).8 To consider texts as creatures to be sought after, enticed, and perhaps trapped, emphasizes the vitality and otherness of the texts. The prey is alive and skittish, perhaps dangerous, and usually elusive, but it certainly mitigates the autonomous wholeness of the authorial self. Mignon Eberhart “lurks” while waiting to begin her text: “When an idea appears, I leap on it with all fours and hold it down till I’ve mastered it” (1977, p. 194). Flannery O’Connor wants to “feel it out like a hound dog” and “follow the scent. Quite frequently,” she says, “it’s the wrong scent” (1966). With regard to early stages of writing, authors mention setting out to hunt a rabbit (E. B. White, 1969), capturing textual butterflies (Taner Baybars, 1966), sensing the aura of bear, squirrel, or snake (Denise Levertov, 1974), beating the bush to flush a bird (Laurens Van Der Post, 1964), and capturing an elusive wild deer or a lizard (Lawrence Durrell, 1977).9,10,11 Those who do not hunt animals may instead “coax” them in, preferring to be “host” rather than a “big-game hunter” (Seamus Heaney, 1981, p. 72). Sandra Cisneros distinguishes the pleasures of writing poetry by rendering poems as cats on leashes: I simply write and in the act of writing discover what it is I knew…. That is why I enjoy writing poetry over the writing of prose. It is that flowering, that following that is so exciting, exhilarating. You

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

language and a multiplicity of discourses, an interchange that resists as well as permits:

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 79

Christopher Isherwood connects the independence of the text to writing experiences but also to the nature of the texts produced. I mean, you get people with tremendous vitality and total recall like Thomas Wolfe, for example. That’s where the horse ran away, obviously. Some people prefer to ride alongside and see where the horse goes, while others would say it’s much better to use the curb and restrain the horse. (1977 Bailey, p. 90) Madeline L’Engle uses the same metaphor to describe being impelled through the writing process: I can tell you some things by hindsight or from what people have told me. But basically, when I’m writing a story it’s like riding a rather wild horse, letting it go where it wants to go. The only thing I’m in control of is seeing that parts I can simplify … (1974, p. 255) Ursula Le Guin uses the same metaphor to emphasize the “feel” of engaging in the writing process, of interacting with the text: Fantasy starts in a very irrational place deep inside you. It’s got to start, probably, from feelings you don’t understand, so that there is something that is out of your control, and you’re constantly trying to control it as you write… . It’s like riding a horse. You want the horse to have his own will, because you’re doing something together. If the horse is too docile you won’t go far. (1987, p. 27) Talking about texts as animals suggests their independence, the need to try to control or otherwise engage with recalcitrant, fearful, or headstrong creatures who have minds of their own. The metaphor also connects to the desire to see the finished text as a living organic being. This is the basis of Frederick Manfred’s comment about his text as a beautiful pheasant: Because I do a lot of thinking and plotting before I begin a book. I know where the skeleton is and where the flesh is to be attached and the feathers are to go on. When I get done with a book, I like to

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

cannot teach a poem which way to go. It is like a cat on a leash. Won’t move. But follow it, and oh, so many possibilities! (1985, p. 69)

80 Authors on Writing

In this case, Manfred’s process of writing is not struggling with an independent text, but mapping the anatomy of the text he intends to endow with life. Authors describing their texts through metaphors of discursive sociality are declaring an independence of the texts so as to reveal an interdependence of their writing processes. The activities of manipulating language focus most of authors’ attention not on large “events” of “getting ideas,” but on small textual moves that fulfill “ideas.” Metaphors of discursive sociality can also register how the gradual accumulation of small textual moves can restrict future moves. Any move to establish a voice or shape a text is, at the same time, to reject dozens of other voices and shapes that might at one time have been possible. This is part of Martin Amis’s point when he describes the “demands” that a novel imposes, using a metaphor that mixes a demanding text, tunneling, and taking prisoners: Writing a novel always feels to me like starting off in a very wide tunnel—in fact, it doesn’t look like a tunnel at all, since it’s marvelously airy and free at the beginning, when you are assigning life to various propositions—but finishing off by crawling down a really cramped tunnel, because the novel itself has set up so many demands on you. There is so little room for manoeuvre by the end that you are actually a complete prisoner of the book, and it is formal demands that cause all these constrictions: the shape gets very tight by the end, and there are no choices any more. (1985, p. 17) Perhaps most important, these metaphors emphasize the duration of time, the intensity of concentration, and the quarrel with others that are required by writing processes. *

Characters as co-authors Perhaps the best-known example of the figurative theme of an author confronting independent characters comes from Luigi Pirandello’s

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

have it like a pheasant in flight. It works. It’s beautiful. But I know before it flies where every bone and every gut and every feather and every drop of blood and bile and the whole business…. (1974, pp. 28–9, ellipsis in original)

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 81

[They] went on living on their own, choosing certain moments of the day to reappear before me in the solitude of my study and coming—now one, now the other, now two together—to tempt me, to propose that I present or describe this scene or that, to explain the effects that could be secured with them, the new interest which a certain situation could provide, and so forth…. [It] became gradually harder and harder for me to go back and free myself from them… They are detached from me; live on their own; have acquired voice and movement; have by themselves—in this struggle for existence that they have had to wage with me—become dramatic characters, characters that move and talk on their own initiative; already see themselves as such; have learned to defend themselves against me… (1960, pp. 206–7) Pirandello’s fascinating account of his writing processes directs attention to the complications of text-level interactions, to moves designed to shape the direction of texts while facing the exigencies that emerge within it.13 It illuminates certain core characteristics endemic to stories about characters as co-authors. In these accounts, characters come to writers, are found, or create themselves.14 They become alive, autonomous, and independent during the process of writing.15 Characters may initiate the narrative by their arrival.16 They do things their authors do not expect,17 suggest or choose what they will do or say, and tell their own stories often with a kind of inevitability.18 Characters talk to writers and make demands on them about what and how and when to write,19 they try or manage to take over the course of the narrative, the writing process, and even the writer.20 Characters can respond critically to what authors write, as evaluators and as explicators.21 Fiction writers often describe their characters as real people who come alive and even become co-authors seeking to take charge of part of the narrative. Timothy Findley explains how he “meets” his collaborators: The first thing I see is the person, and the person will come and you’ll hear this in your mind (knocking sound); and you go to the door and you open the door and standing there is Hooker Winslow with a cat in his arms. And he says: I’m in trouble, babble, babble,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

play Six Characters in Search of an Author.12 In his preface to the play, Pirandello describes his encounters:

82 Authors on Writing

Findley describes his characters shoving their way into his life and refusing to leave until he begins a new text. Such powerful characters are presumed to have had a life before the writer begins to write about them. Meeting them can be difficult, confrontational, and pressured. Findley even tries to protect himself from them by starting his writing with a central event which he describes as a brick wall: I’m now learning that it’s very important to build what I call a brick wall first. Then everybody [all the characters] has to get in the cars and drive towards the brick wall. They’re all driving towards that brick wall, and you have to have in the structure of your writing the brick wall: they must all either pass through or crash against the brick wall … (1973 Gibson, pp. 136–7) Rather than working with inert material, trying to make it “come alive,” authors such as Findley move with or struggle against a powerful, demanding text and even take steps to protect themselves from the willfulness of co-authors. Findlay continues: All authors are whispered to by their characters. The characters want life, and you have to give it to them. It’s a little like rape, with no recourse to abortion. They take your body and you have to give birth…. The characters want life, and you have to give it to them…. They arrive on your doorstep, and they say, I am coming into your life and I am not going to leave until I am down on the paper and that’s the end of it. (1973 Cameron, pp. 52–3) When writers ascribe independence to their characters they reveal the importance of points of tension during writing—the ways in which writing processes themselves stretch and shape authors’ original intentions. Writing requires authors to establish both short term and long range plans, to adjust previous plans according to new insights and the nature of the emerging text, and to evaluate their progress according to criteria related to genre, audience, and purpose. To alleviate the “cognitive strain” of managing so many complex tasks, experienced and fluent writers engage in systematic task management strategies and

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

babble, and a scene evolves, but it’s all around the arrival of this person. It’s the arrival of a person that comes first, then the milieu; where do you belong, who are your people? Then the story comes. So it all comes in that order. (1973 Gibson, p. 136)

even complete some tasks “automatically.” Writers may then express their perceptions of changing task demands by using fictional stories which “assign” spheres of responsibility to their characters. Metaphorical descriptions of characters as co-authors attribute to mundane characters what quintessential creative-moment metaphors of illumination and inspiration tend to ascribe to deities. Positioning a writing problem as the consequence of actions by a social “other” augments our understanding of the writer’s task. One refers with awe to a mysterious spiritual superior, but not to a recalcitrant collaborator. Characters’ contributions are not always welcome, and resisting them allegorizes the dialogue between textual desires and textual effects. Joyce Carol Oates in interviews frequently uses the metaphor of characters as co-authors. For example, she says that her stories originate when characters gradually “appear” and their relations become evident to her: … I often fall into a kind of waking sleep, a day-dreaming about the people, the strangers, who are to be the “characters” in a story or novel I will be writing. I can’t do much about this habit. At times my head seems crowded; there is a kind of pressure inside it, almost a frightening physical sense of confusion, fullness, dizziness. Strange people appear in my thoughts and define themselves slowly to me: first their faces, then their personalities and quirks and personal histories, then their relationships with other people, who very slowly appear, and a kind of “plot” then becomes clear to me as I figure out how all these people came together and what they are doing. (1974, p. 21)22 Oates implies that her characters have existed prior to the time that they appear in her mind. She seems to find their arrival compelling but also disturbing. She does not describe herself as setting a stage for thinking about writing or creating these characters; in fact she implies that she is reluctant to experience this daydreaming—“I can’t do much about this habit.” Her description of how her characters gradually reveal themselves suggests that her ideas develop over a long, absorbing period of prewriting. Oates indicates that she has little control over the behavior of her characters. My “characters” really dictate themselves to me. I am not free of them, really, and I can’t force them into situations they haven’t

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 83

84 Authors on Writing

Oates’ claim that she “can’t force [her characters] into situations they haven’t themselves willed” may represent a conflict between her original intentions and the emerging text. She also implies that purposes of various kinds may not be in agreement, so that potential text generated in response to one problem may conflict with another potential version of the text. For Oates to liken her experiences to dreams de-emphasizes the “reality” of her characters’ autonomy. She suggests that her view of characters as co-authors both is and is not metaphorical. The story is “real” in the same way dreams are real. Seen in the context of other writers’ comments, Oates’ statements are something of a concession to the fictive qualities of the fictional story, perhaps suggesting the gap between her style of fiction and “realism.” To have dream characters intrude upon one, to observe the events of a dream, to transcribe a dream, these seem less compelling than the intrusions and demands of real persons usually implied by talking about characters as coauthors.23 But like realists such as John Dos Passos (1973) and William Sansom (1974), Oates relates that characters who are willful and compelling during composing will be strong and well-developed in the finished narrative, that characters who are vivacious and believable to the reader must have been headstrong during composing. When characters are lively, writers may struggle with them during the process of composition, and not always successfully. Oates struggled with her character, Hugh Petrie, and claims she was only partly victorious. Her own desire, she says, was for a much shorter first section. She concludes that Petrie’s influence is unfortunate, but that the problems actually result from the character’s influence, his independence and insistence, not from any choices of her own.24 Oates attributes problems in the text to her inability to control her characters, to prevent them from saying what they want to say. Characters can carry both credit and blame. Kaye Gibbons sees her characters as making decisions about the proper management of their affairs because they know the proper way to do things. She positions herself in authorial control, but granting responsibility to the characters, much like the delegating manager of a large corporation. In one novel, it was important that a character, Starletta, show up at the house of the character Ellen Foster. It was

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

themselves willed. They have the autonomy of characters in a dream…. In fact, … it occurs to me that I am really transcribing dreams. (1974, p. 30)

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 85

Ellen made sure she did…. And I don’t feel like I handled it. I feel like Starletta handled it, and Starletta handled it just right. I watched what she did and got my cue from her and wrote it down. So it couldn’t help but be right. Starletta was going to do what came naturally to her. Learning that as a writer requires a great leap of faith, and it’s like delegating responsibility, and I had to learn to delegate responsibility for my story to my characters and not feel this urge to be in control all the time. It’s like the president of a large corporation who’s always going to the warehouse to make sure the right widgets are in a box. He has to trust that the people on the line put the right number of widgets in there, and I had to trust Starletta. (1993, p. 79) Gibbons indicates that this particular delegation of responsibility worked successfully. Authors may use these stories as a shorthand way of diagnosing problems in their writing, feeling that characters recognize problems, gaps, or faulty plans that the author does not yet understand. Cynthia Macdonald indicates that her character Blaschka was reluctant to speak because he knew more than she did about his actual situation: My first attempt was to have Blaschka talking to his wife. That didn’t work. He refused to say much to her either, no matter how I tried to force him to. No wonder: he knew about his secret, his relationship with Lilianne, even though I still did not. (1977, pp. 210–11) While Macdonald focuses on Blaschka’s resistance, she implies that at some point there was a moment of resolution. When she “found out” about Lilianne, she must have been able to persuade him to speak. When she altered her scope to include their relations, she was able to proceed. What the metaphorical story pinpoints is not ease of writing, nor cooperation, but privileged knowledge available first to the character, and only later understood by the writer. Writers may also attribute changes in goals, writing processes, and the structure of texts to the knowledge or influence of the characters. Rudolfo Anaya describes the point in the development of his first

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Starletta’s own knowledge, Gibbons claims, that enabled her to do this.

86 Authors on Writing

I began to tell the story of a family and Antonio, a young boy, and worked at it for years. It never really took shape, in terms of inspiration, until the night that Ultima came to me and appeared as a fullfledged character. She stood beside me and pointed out the things I had to do with the novel if it was going to work. She suggested that she would be an excellent character, and worked herself into the novel. From there on it clicked. (1980, p. 187) Anaya presents Ultima as an older, wiser co-author who provides a critique of his rough drafts, suggests methods for improvement, and demonstrates how the major method of improvement—including her as a character—would solve most of the problems revealed by the critique. Her intervention is the crux of the creation of the novel, as Anaya chooses to solve his writing problems by accepting her advice. Anaya describes here a moment in composing when he establishes a new focal point around which he could successfully shape the novel. Both Macdonald and Anaya had been struggling unsuccessfully. Revising their plans according to information available to the characters or garnered by taking advice from them, enabled the writing to proceed successfully. The dialogic encounter of two different voices allowed the novel to take shape. Similar stories can contain very different inflections. Oates indicates that the reluctance of Hugh Petrie to die made her writing process conflicted and may have marred her final text. In contrast, Leslie Marmon Silko emphasizes the creative contributions made by vivid characters. When her interviewer comments about “some pretty awful characters” in Almanac of the Dead, Silko replies, Even though there are parts of them I didn’t like, I have to say I liked all my characters quite a bit. I had planned on killing a bunch more than I did, but the characters knew in a way that I didn’t know. It was almost as if some other part of me was trying to save them. A lot of the characters developed—they became more than what I thought they were or could be—and they saved their own lives. (1993, p. 329) Silko delineates a positive tension, where her plans for creating the text changed in response to what emerged during the writing process. The

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

novel, Bless Me, Ultima, when long-standing problems in the narrative were solved by the appearance of the character Ultima.

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 87

When you create a character like that Miss Liz, you suddenly find out she never does anything she doesn’t want to. You, as a writer, have no control over her once she is established. And suddenly no man could come into that novel, because of Miss Liz’s presence…. (1973, p. 210) In these cases, conflict occurs because uncooperative and unruly characters resist their authors’ desires. Conflict is controlled or circumvented when one of the parties (sometimes the author) decides to cooperate with the other. Yet tension and conflict remain central to the writing process, whether it is the authors who resist their characters’ desires or when characters resist their authors’ desires. This metaphorical conflict reproduces tensions within the writer as well as those between writer and reader, writer and the larger social world. It acknowledges and performs the limits imposed on the writers’ narcissism—the degree to which the writer is not and cannot be a solitary, self-encapsulated genius. Writers frequently cite characters as co-authors to indicate resolutions between their original plans and their revised texts. Anthony Powell reports that the overall structure “inevitably” must be adjusted: “You set out in advance with a certain number of characters, but as they do different things, inevitably you have to trim your sails to what they have done …” (1978, p. 64). Novelist Martin Myers describes how the overwhelming force of the emerging text leads him to adjust his original plan: “Once I got the character started, it just absolutely took over. Then I had to make everything fit into the characterization, and that had a lot to do with the way the book worked out” (1973, p. 91). The co-author metaphor also enables writers to emphasize the way that a well-internalized structure or over-all plan can function as a matrix for developing a text, allowing the writer to by-pass some planning and make many decisions automatically. Cynthia Macdonald again refers to her character Blaschka, this time indicating that he could be cooperative. Macdonald, noting that she is accustomed to the form of the dramatic monologue, reveals that when she came to write The Stained Glass Man, she found the form “so natural to [her] that Rudolf Blaschka’s voice, giving the guided tour, came unbidden”

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

sociality she ascribes to her characters metaphorically reproduces the dialogical quality of fiction itself, suggesting that the form is social and collaborative down to its very genesis. Similarly, Sylvia Wilkinson indicates

(1977, p. 210). By indicating that Blaschka’s voice comes easily, and by attributing that ease to her experience with the genre, Macdonald is using the fictional story to emphasize that form has generative benefits. By drawing on her schema for a dramatic monologue, Macdonald does not have to make so many decisions, does not have to choose from so many alternative sub-goals as she moves from larger plan to specific text. She condenses and figures the many voices inhabiting fictive tradition as the voice of a guiding character coming to her unbidden. Even without such a schema, decisions made during planning may function as a framework for the generation of a specific text. When discussing his writing of The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pitman, Ernest J. Gaines says “You must invent some incidents along the way, and when Miss Jane gets into the incident, she’ll develop it for you” (1976, p. 92). Gaines indicates that his broad plans are developed further once he gets into an event. He learns what he will want to write by focusing on the incident, developing and following through on appropriate goals. The intimate interaction of goals and emerging text, active planning and passive listening, produces new understanding, new ideas, new and unanticipated textual features. While Macdonald’s and Gaines’ characters again represent emerging meaning, in these cases the characters are cooperative: their actions, ideas, and dialogue fit easily into the authors’ larger plans. Their independence does not reflect increased tension in the writing process, but a diminishing of tension, generating texts appropriate to higher level objectives. This is part of what authors may imply when they speak of characters “rising up and taking charge” toward the end of the book. In addition to figuring the dialogism and discursive sociality of the composing process, tussles with characters represent the authors’ myriad struggles with the writing task. Author interviews indicate a seemingly endless succession of such struggles as characters insist, demand, reject, speak, say useless things, refuse to speak, lie to their authors, ignore suggestions, negotiate changes, resent what has been written about them, leave without telling, push other characters aside, confront, and even assault, push, pull, shove, and grapple with their authors. Yet in contrast to the behavior of all these recalcitrant characters, many interviews celebrate moments when characters take charge of the narrative and act on their own, in effect concluding the writer’s struggle in a positive way, guiding the writer to a successful completion of a difficult task. Here cooperation trumps conflict. In a famous example,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

88 Authors on Writing

William Faulkner says, “There is always a point in the book where the characters themselves rise up and take charge and finish the job— say somewhere about page 275” (1958, p. 129). Faulkner’s comment implies a major change in his creative processes. Before the characters take charge (before page 275), Faulkner has to write on his own. After that point, however, his characters are his co-authors. The metaphor of shared labor, of social cooperation, stills the pervasive anxiety of creativity. Some widely quoted stories about characters as co-authors emphasize effortless and impelled writing when authors relinquish authorial responsibility to their characters. This emphasis is misleading, however, since the metaphor appears in the first place to indicate problems with one’s characters. In fact, instances describing difficulties with one’s characters may be, in effect, ironic commentary on the vision of ease suggested by stories of inspiration, punctuation, or compliant co-authors. The nettling nature of co-author characters can make some authors reject the metaphor altogether. Vladimir Nabokov vigorously repudiates the notion: INTERVIEWER: One often hears from writers talk of how a character takes hold of them and in a sense dictates the course of the action. Has this been your experience? NABOKOV: I have never experienced this. What a preposterous experience! Writers who have had it must be very minor or insane. (1972, p. 41) Yet if Nabokov were to survey literary interviews, he would have to classify as “very minor or insane” such writers as Saul Bellow (1972 Kulshrestha, 1972 Enck), Isak Dinesen (1977), John Dos Passos (1973), Ralph Ellison (1974), William Faulkner (1966, 1977), E. M. Forster (1977), John Fowles (1976), John Gardner (1979, 1981), William Inge (1971), Doris Lessing (1974), Bernard Malamud (1975), Larry McMurtry (1980), Joyce Carol Oates (1974, 1978), Harold Pinter (1977), Katherine Anne Porter (1977), and Jessamyn West (1976). Nabokov may at first appear to be saying that characters are not real, but to the contrary, his venom is actually directed at the suggestion that the characters could lead or control the author. In the same interview, he indicates that he has no intention of sharing his authorial responsibilities and privileges with them: “[E]very character follows the

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 89

90 Authors on Writing

INTERVIEWER: E. M. Forster25 speaks of his major characters sometimes taking over and dictating the course of his novels. Has this ever been a problem for you, or are you in complete command? NABOKOV: … it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy … although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves. (1977, p. 96) Nabokov here represses his knowledge of the textual and social discourse that inevitably helps construct his own. Denying such permeations and penetrations, he takes recourse to the notion of the autonomous author, ironizing his position through metaphors of dictator and slaveholder. In effect, he acknowledges that his desire for absolute power is aberrant and abhorrent, yet he refuses to give it up. An author who has been called the last modernist insists, however ironically, on his privileges. Whether authors affirm or deny agency on the part of their characters, tensions remain between planning and altering plans, between shaping and being shaped. These take tangible form in metaphorical stories about co-authors. When asked by his interviewer about the extent to which his characters take charge, John Barth claims: You know, I suspect that’s a lot of baloney. You hear respectable writers, sensible people like Katherine Anne Porter, say the characters just take over.26 I’m not going to let those scoundrels take over. I am in charge. I like novels like Unamuno’s in which the characters challenge the author and begin to argue with him, but in my book they don’t take over. No, sir, my characters are going to do what I tell them. Really, I don’t think you ought to pay very much attention—it wasn’t Katherine Anne Porter, it was some silly woman who was being interviewed on the Today Show a few weeks ago; she had just finished a book and said that she hadn’t wanted it to go the way it did, but the characters had just taken over. You shouldn’t pay much attention to anything writers say. (1972, p. 24) Apparently rejecting the metaphor of characters as co-authors, Nabokov and Barth nonetheless personify their characters and quite

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

course I imagine for him. I am the perfect dictator in that private world” (1972, p. 41). And on another occasion:

emphatically—as galley slaves and scoundrels. They do not claim that their characters are not alive, but emphasize instead that one should not give in to their importuning. Not to give in, to constrain such characters, involves the tension of trying to gain and maintain control over incipient conflict and rebellion. The question appears to be: who is in charge—author or character? The jocular denials of both Nabokov and Barth suggest, through a process akin to Freudian “negation,” that they are all too aware of the multiple voices embedded in and shaping their own. In an interview published a decade later, Barth again makes reference to the metaphor, but in this case as “simply a metaphor for the way things actually are.” That old convention of earlier modernism—of the dialogue between the author and his characters, the assumption of an independent life by those characters, even the mutiny of the characters against the author—that’s simply a metaphor for the way things actually are. I’m not very romantic about writing, and it always makes me uncomfortable when I hear an old-fashioned writer talk about the way his or her characters assume a life of their own: “I wanted this character to be such and such. But, no, she insisted on …” This is the kind of hogwash you hear from a certain kind of writer who talks in a romantic way about art. But on the level of simple fact, I think it’s undeniable that the work we do changes us; the dreams we dream change us. (1982, p. 32) A few pages later, Barth comments further, I don’t know myself, … whether the theme of re-enactment grew out of my interest in those famous re-enactments or whether it was the other way around. No more than I can, in some respects, say whether the author is shaping the characters or the characters are shaping the author. (1982, p. 34) The apparent change in Barth’s position may stem from his acknowledgment in the second interview of not only the complications of representing what writers do (“You shouldn’t pay much attention to anything writers say”), but also the complications of knowing what happens in writing lives. Though metaphors are never “the way things actually are,” they are also, at the same time, in fact “the way things actually are.” That is the contradictory nature of metaphor, and

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 91

certainly the nature of trying to say anything meaningful about such a complicated topic as one’s writing life. Barth’s statements in both interviews attempt to contest what appears to him a rampant “romanticism” in discussions about writing. Evidence of that “romanticism” may lie in the ways in which interviewers rather than authors usually introduce the idea of characters as co-authors to these discussions. The interviewers’ interest often mimics inspiration metaphors, generally in connection with wondering whether authors write in “altered states of consciousness,” at the mercy of characters. John Cheever objects that The legend that characters run away from their authors—taking up drugs, having sex operations and becoming President—implies that the writer is a fool with no knowledge or mastery of his craft. This is absurd. Of course, any estimable exercise of the imagination draws upon such a complex richness of memory that it truly enjoys the expansiveness—the surprising turns, the response to light and darkness—of any living thing. But the idea of authors running around helplessly behind their cretinous inventions is contemptible. (1975, p. 43) Cheever presents one possible interpretation. I argue for another, however. Making reference to the legend that characters run away from their authors may well demonstrate that writers have a great deal of knowledge indeed—knowledge about the tensions of planning, writing, and revision, knowledge of how to stretch their conceptions in the process of writing and alter their texts to reflect an enriched vision, knowledge of the many voices that contribute to their own. The recurrent legend of the independent character, that is, bears upon creativity as both intellectual labor and social act. Some writers reject the metaphor of characters as co-authors precisely to home in on the difficult processes of writing and the complex negotiations between conscious and unconscious activity that they entail, without reference to negotiations with others. In an especially insightful version of this position, Edward Albee says I know playwrights who like to kid themselves into saying that their characters are so well-formed that they just take over. They determine the structure of the play. By which is meant, I suspect, only that the unconscious mind has done its work so thoroughly that the

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

92 Authors on Writing

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality 93

References to conscious and unconscious minds are no less “metaphorical” than metaphors about characters as co-authors. Like most metaphors for composing, they summarize an enormous number of discrete textual tasks into a generalized story. Albee draws on metaphors drawn from psychology and other fields. Though widely used outside literary discourses, such terms as “the unconscious mind” are alternative metaphors, not “non-metaphorical.”27 The concerns voiced by Barth and Albee about the implicit romanticism of treating characters as co-authors may evidence legitimate resistance to wide-spread mystifications of writing processes, as well as the widespread use of this particular metaphor. Positioning particular metaphorical stories as generalizable to large numbers of authors, as interviewers’ use of characters as co-authors does so relentlessly, truncates the enormous variation in processes of writing. Writers are hard at work inflecting the story to demonstrate through it the constant tension and negotiation with themselves and others at the center of the process of writing. They also use it to draw attention to the fact of their own individuality as writers. James Leigh comments ruefully, I’ve always been impressed—too impressed, probably—with Faulkner saying that if you do your work right, the characters will stand up and walk, along about page 275, and then all you have to do is take notes on what they do. Now, every year that passes, more of my head says “Bullshit!” It may have worked that way for him, but I’ve slowly come to terms with the fact that I’m not Faulkner. Oh my, have I! (1976, p. 135)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

play just has to be filtered through the conscious mind. But there is work to be done—and discovery to be made. (1977, p. 343)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Part II

The Apparatus of Authorship

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

6

As we have seen, the testimonies that writers present in published interviews do not produce unmediated truths about composition; quite the contrary. Interviews provide metaphorical accounts of writing that take their place within a long tradition of discourse about compositional origins. Moreover, self-reported recollections of past writing activities are often imprecise, incomplete, and inaccurate. They have little to offer as evidence about actual writing practices. Authors perform identities and supply stories about writing in interviews to explain themselves, in order to seem interesting, to exercise their creativity, to engage and expand their readership, or to advance their professional and commercial reputations. They also respond to prompting, prodding, and provocation by interviewers eager to have their own notions and concepts approved by recognized authority figures. Interviews retrospectively construct (and necessarily constrict) long and complicated writing processes into short memorable anecdotes and images. My inquiry goes against the grain of a widespread and deeply imbedded cultural desire to view authors and creative artists of all kinds as solitary geniuses inspired by muses exclusively their own, as decisive originators of prose we have come to admire, learn from, and even love. Literary historians and critics have often been complicit, even evangelical, about portraying authors as “heroes” worthy of admiration. They often suggest that valorizing authors provides people with powerful resources that may help ground them in the world. Heroic authors can be seen as rising above the limitations of readers’ daily lives. Careful scrutiny of how authors do their work, however, runs the risk of disillusioning and disappointing people looking for heroes. 97

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor

98 Authors on Writing

Faulkner made the point that nobody really wants to know how visceral writers really are, how intuitive, how they perceive at such a low degree of intellection in their everyday work. Critics certainly don’t like to hear that their heroes have minds like compost heaps. [Laughs.] (1984, p. 205) Doctorow is certainly correct that revealing oneself as picking through rot, stink, muck, waste, and filth does not invite us to idolize the author. He describes a real problem facing readers who seek a behindthe-scenes look at the writing processes of authors they admire.1 The social prestige that authors enjoy, and the intellectual pleasures their works produce, stimulate desires to come closer to them, desires that account for the enduring popularity of literary interviews, and thus provide the archive of metaphorical stories about composing that I analyze in this book. Despite or because of their generic features, interviews can focus our attention on writing processes as well as on literary products and personalities. The conversation format reminds us of the collaborative nature of cultural production, the play of differences that emerges from dialogue, the creative consequences of communion and conflict among different kinds of consciousness. When writers report divine inspiration from the gods, poetic empowerment from the muses or from nature, or psychological assistance from the Freudian unconscious, they describe different ways of standing outside their common sense selves, of interpreting the present by expanding the perspective through which it may be viewed. By bracketing whatever literal meanings these metaphors may have for authors and instead treating them as metaphors, we can see that authors reveal that both writing and speaking about writing are ways of generating new ideas, not just reporting on ideas already mastered. Close analysis of interviews with published authors can provide us, nonetheless, with a unique optic on the socially shared, collectively inherited, and richly dialogical understanding of composition that prevails at the present time, helping us see what writing now is, how it is done, why it is important. Metaphors about the writing process enable us to see different kinds of writing as part of the same socially defined practice. This is not to say that published authors and beginning

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Echoing William Faulkner, novelist E. L. Doctorow comments wryly on the precarious position of the interviewed author in the face of general desires to glorify authorship:

writers compose in the same fashion, or that all written works have equal value, or that individual writers are simply soulless automatons through whom currents of discourse flow. The writing of accomplished authors differs markedly from papers written by apprentice students in a composition classroom. Reading interviews with fiction writers and poets is no substitute for meaningful engagement with their artistic creations. Yet interview evidence provides a valuable source of knowledge about writing precisely because it attends to practice and process, demystifying literary works by revealing the work, worry, transmitted information, and will that goes into their creation. Comments in interviews about authorship and composing transform the times and spaces of writing. Authors and audiences return to previous experiences and anticipate others to come. Readers of interviews “travel” to the discursive and physical spaces that authors inhabit, while writers reach across time and space to attract new readers. The speaking that takes place in interviews functions as a node in a network of communications that shapes how, what, and why authors write. The writing process is never a pure monologue. Authors enter a dialogue already in progress, “answering” other writers, and producing messages that provoke answers of their own. For Bakhtin (1986), every written or spoken utterance contains an element of response and functions as a link in a complexly organized chain. To see subjects situated in language in this way does not dis-empower authors and speakers, but rather sees them as fully social participants in dynamic currents of thought, speech, and action. Once we move beyond the search for author heroes, it becomes possible to explore the many other kinds of social subjects and subjectivities that writing includes. We can examine the genres of author interviews critically to discern how they expose previously occluded aspects of composing, how they illuminate important issues about the teaching of writing, and how they enable us to recognize that the changing contours of intellectual labor are producing new social subjects and subjectivities through writing activities. Many discourses come into play in literary interviews, including interpretation, criticism, history, publicity, and the relation of any text to other texts. Yet similarities in interviews with authors who produce very different types of texts reflect the role of the literary interview itself as a “speech genre” contributing to the formation of contemporary cultures of writing.2 The socially shared discourse about writing that interviews reflect and shape may seem to make them banal, to render interviews far less important sources of information about

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor 99

writing than self-conscious statements and manifestos on composition by published authors. Yet like all written and oral communication, interviews respond to, engage with, and inflect previous utterances. Interviews differ from manifestos in that their openly dialogic qualities reveal the collective assumptions, shared stories, and borrowed ideas that essays and manifestos often conceal. The intertextuality we find in the words of interviewed authors does not stem from any failure of originality, but rather reflects the presence and power of a shared social discourse. Bakhtin explains Utterances are not indifferent to one another, and are not selfsufficient; they are aware of and mutually reflect one another. These mutual reflections determine their character. Each utterance is filled with echoes and reverberations of other utterances to which it is related … Each utterance refutes, affirms, supplements, and relies on the others, presupposes them to be known, and somehow takes them into account. (1986, p. 91) This discursive condition, hidden in other genres, comes to the fore in the interview. As a genre of discourse, interviews revolve around social expectations that speakers can play with, violate, fulfill or frustrate. Their intelligibility nonetheless depends upon shared social expectations. Consequently, authors tend to tap a delimited stream of tropes when discussing their writing processes. Yet they still “inflect” their commentaries according to personal projects and personal styles. Interview evidence can enable us to discern what Raymond Williams describes as “the truly social in the individual and the truly individual in the social” (Williams, 1977, p. 197). All writers and readers participate, more or less distantly, in “cultures of writing.” Contemporary cultures of writing include an understanding that one may turn to authors to inquire about their writing activities. Most readers of fiction and poetry know about authorial interviews, whether or not they read them regularly. Many writers comment on things they have read in interviews of other authors, revealing that authors are both producers and consumers of interviews about writing. Yet writers do not just participate in socially shared discourses; they are also constituted by them. Louis Althusser deploys a metaphor useful in explaining this idea. He describes how social discourses identify, recruit, and “hail” us by likening them to the way the words ‘Hey,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

100 Authors on Writing

you there” from a police officer will cause us to stop, turn around, and respond to the call that interpellates us (Althusser, 1971, pp. 162–3). The texts people read, like the policeman calling out to them, ask us to become different kinds of subjects in different kinds of situations. Textbooks “hail” chemistry students. Baby Books call fond parents into being. The Merck Manual interpellates its readers as medical practitioners. Literary interviews position audiences as writers and readers. People can accept, reject, or negotiate the various subject positions that hail them. All people, however, necessarily find their identities through the contradictory calls of a “shower of hailing,” a “deluge of discourse.” Interviews form a prominent method of interpellating readers as potential writers, lovers of writing, appreciators of literature, and aficionados of specific genres. Interviews aim their messages at imagined, maximally competent and appreciative readers. Readers might identify with the interviewers or the interviewed, might imagine themselves as positioned in life with status, knowledge, and expertise worth hearing about, not merely “ordinary.” The interviewer purports to provoke a “behind the scenes” intimate picture, a personal revelation. An author’s ostensibly face-to-face interaction with the interviewer stands in for a one-to-one discussion with the reader. People learn from discourses and discursive practices how the world should be constructed, what authors are, what reading is, and what composing is, without being aware of the explicit implications of their doing so, and without necessarily seeing how their subjectivities are shaped by such discourses (Weedon, 1987, p. 31). The typical printed form of the published interview deliberately presents itself as an interchange between at least two people, usually with the implication that the interaction is face-to-face, implying a certain intimacy between interviewer and subject. But things are not always as they seem. Interviewers frequently conduct interviews “by mail,” sending authors a set of questions for them to answer (Turner 1977). The original Playboy interview with Vladimir Nabokov appeared as a “transparent” interchange. When later anthologized, however, an appended note indicated that Nabokov had requested that the questions be written out in advance on note cards, and that during the “interview proper” he stood at his lectern writing out his replies to the questions while the interviewer browsed through the bookshelves of Nabokov’s study (Golson, 1981). Most interviews consist of “co-authored” literary pieces jointly produced by the writer interviewed, the interviewer, and an editor.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor 101

Contemporary methods of interviewing result in a kind of discourse that is not “oral,” not “written,” but a combination. Tape recordings and transcriptions face subsequent editing by the interviewer, and sometimes by the author, and even others. Questions shape interviews, both for better and for worse.3 Some interview topics may have been regrouped to facilitate comparison and understanding.4 When interviewed together, co-authors may have their answers commingled, so that the replies seem to come from one author. This is especially true when one “author” actually represents the work of two or more collaborators as in the case of the pseudonymous authors Ellery Queen (1977) and Emma Lathen (1983). Many writers have been interviewed so often that they can anticipate potential questions and have developed set anecdotes and responses that demonstrate intertextuality between interviews as well as between interview discourse and other kinds of texts that the authors have produced.5 The genre entails many shared conventions beyond the obvious reliance on sequential questions and answers.6 Though an infinite variety of authorial commentaries might seem available for interviews, what emerges are not infinite, but generic “types.” The New York Quarterly (1971) identified four kinds of interviews with published authors: the “professorial,” the “opinionated,” the “gossipy,” and the “craft” interview.7 The journal emphasizes what it calls the “craft” interview, focusing on the “circumstances of an author’s work.” Yet evaluative and pedagogical undercurrents run through many interviews. Authors are frequently asked to comment on the work of other writers, requested to adopt the role of literary critics. Some interviewed authors are also literary critics, of course, but many are not. While often interesting, these exchanges reveal a powerful desire to make evaluative distinctions among literary texts, rather than an interest in finding out how authors’ work situates them as writers. Direct questions about the nature of intellectual labor, relations between texts and contexts, or the role of business practices in authorship rarely appear directly in questions, even though interviews almost always provide a rich repository of direct and indirect testimony on these topics. Pedagogy also provides a recurrent purpose for the literary interview. Many questions veer away from probing the writer’s own procedures to ask about practices recommended for others. The frequency of such questions indicates that potential or aspiring writers are assumed to be important readers of these exchanges.8 Interviews proclaim authorial “uniqueness,” yet at the same time evidence the desire to have indi-

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

102 Authors on Writing

vidual authors represent the “universal.”9 This kind of interview implies that there is a secret one can have about writing, a secret that will open the door to recognition and reward for the reader. I do not want to scorn or belittle this undercurrent of pedagogy in literary interviews. I would argue, in fact, that it is one important method by which cultures of writing are produced. Literary interviews foster cultures of writing partly by their pedagogy of desire, by revealing and universalizing the author’s “interiority” and establishing that the author is a person whose “subjectivity” is “deep” beyond the norm, worthy of intimate probing to demonstrate its richness. The author is presented as a person to admire or emulate. Yet much more than this emerges from writers’ retrospective accounts of their writing processes. Metaphorical models about the composing process direct our attention away from the special qualities of elite individuals and to the shared social discourse that constitutes writing processes. Yet what brings interviews into existence in the first place is the very celebrity status of the author that detailed analysis helps us deconstruct. Richard D. Altick clarifies the origins and long history of the celebration of authors as special people. He shows how the emergence of British (and ultimately, American) literary biography depended in no small measure on the affective pleasures produced by the conception of author as hero (1965). By the 1760s, Altick explains, sentimental attachments to books and their authors permeated popular interest in literature (1965, p. 44). The rise of literary biography entailed positioning authors in roles pioneered by historical narratives focused on the contributions of heroic men. Early images of literary authors as heroes emerged less from actual heroic deeds than from the pleasures provided by narrative, as if authors could be seen as characters. This veneration of writers as representative heroes gained momentum at the beginning of the nineteenth century and participated in the rise of romanticism. Author heroes have not been extolled in exactly the same ways in all times and places. Yet for several centuries, European and American interest in authors has coalesced around a belief in the special subjectivity and interiority of writers. The concept of romantic genius, Altick explains, filled and “would continue to fill for the better part of a century, an urgent need in English emotional life” (1965, p. 82). Changes in the material conditions and social roles of writers facilitated this phenomenon—specifically, the transformation from a system of patronage to one of commodity production.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor 103

The continuing popularity of literary interviews today demonstrates that the promise of engagement with exceptional subjectivities continues to interest readers. Even as journalists, genre writers, local writers, children’s writers, and others join the ranks of those profiled and interviewed, a search for the special subjectivity of creative artists continues to serve a significant focal point within literary culture (see Silver, 1999, and Moran, 2000). In the late 1960s and the 1970s, two French critical theorists challenged the centrality of the interiority of authors as the primary frame for understanding literary and philosophical texts. From somewhat different theoretical positions, Roland Barthes (1977) and Michel Foucault (1977) argued for shifting emphasis away from authorial subjectivity and toward the influences of language and discursive practices. Their arguments joined with others who situated authors’ intellectual labor within social life and social discourses such as Mikhail Bakhtin (1981, 1968). These ideas encouraged scholars to expand the study of authorship and writerly authority to include inquiries into a broad range of institutions, venues, and practices. The challenges these theorists present remain contested today precisely because of the central links between concepts of authorship and enduring ideologies of human achievement, hierarchy, and social life. The figure of the author is, always has been, and always will be a discursive construct, not a real person. People who write are, of course, material, concrete, and historical persons, but the way they and others think and talk about authorship is always discursive, always subject to received definitions. The nature and significance of these received notions differ over time and with circumstances. Because cultural capital and symbolic power accompany authorship (see Bourdieu, 1984), the arguments advanced by Barthes and Foucault challenge strongly felt investments and widely held assumptions about intellectual labor. In challenging concepts of the author as the singular and transcendent source of all meaning for a text, Barthes, Foucault, and others argue that such conceptions have lost their value, not because authors can no longer serve as objects of appreciation, but rather because such conceptions limit our epistemological tools and channel our thinking in ways that are not currently productive. Their arguments can be seen as strategic responses to a specific cultural context, as attempts to redirect attention from individual thinkers to discursive systems. They provoke us to think about how discourse shapes thinkers, rather than simply how thinkers shape discourse.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

104 Authors on Writing

When Roland Barthes discusses the death of the author, he is not announcing, recommending, or celebrating the disempowerment of “real” people who write texts, nor is he denigrating the achievements of canonized writers such as Balzac. To the contrary, Barthes allows us to see real people as authors according to different but still legitimate definitions. As Gayatri Spivak notes, countering some of the antagonistic responses to Barthes’ argument: Barthes is writing here not of the death of the writer … or of the subject, or yet of the agent, but of the Author. The author, who is not only taken to be the authority for the meaning of a text, but also, when possessed of authority, possessed by that fact of “moral or legal supremacy, the power to influence the conduct or action of others”; and, when authorizing, “giving legal force to, making legally valid” (OED). (Spivak, 1993, pp. 104–5, emphasis in original) In arguing that this Author should not be considered the central force of literary creation, Barthes emphasizes, instead, the activity of the reader. Although the dichotomy of author versus reader is a bit overstated—both concepts can function simultaneously as Barthes acknowledged more fully later—Barthes encourages us to think that writers are also readers. The writer is “in this robust sense, a reader at the performance of writing” (Spivak, 1993, p. 105). For Barthes, the reader assumes importance not as a singular individual with “authority” over the text, but as a fully social being, a cultural performer, engaging with the dialogic social exchange which is the text.10 For his part, Foucault argues that “authorship” should be seen as a legal, political, historical and discursive category, not a transcendental act of origin for the text. This argument is a specific instance of Foucault’s more general interest in how historically specific classification schemes come to be seen as universal and free from the matrix of discourses from which they emerge. Foucault explores the possibilities available when we focus our attention on discourse and discursive practices and how they shape thinking. He proposes the term “authorfunction” to differentiate between those texts that are signed and held to be part of an author’s corpus, and those texts that are not signed— for example, posters or scientific texts in certain periods. Foucault’s discussion of the “author-function” usefully emphasizes the degree to which authorship is not a “natural” condition, but a socially ascribed role. When the Author as original source of ideas is taken-for-granted (even if not without challenge), it assumes center

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor 105

stage in explanation. When the Author is moved to the side, other players—and potentially very powerful ones, like discursive practices— can be seen at work. Concerns with origins and where thoughts originate are of particular interest in this debate over authorship. A common way of thinking about texts is to assume that an individuated consciousness came up with ideas and translated them into words. Foucault sets this concept of authorship inside a historical frame. He argues that it has not always been the case that writing was assumed to originate in individual thought. At a specific time in world history, Europeans came to believe that the best way to know things, to master them, and bring them under one’s authority was by determining their origins. This assumed that meaning originated outside of and prior to language. Foucault argues, then, that at this particular moment in time, writing began to imply a source in individual thought and that understanding that source consequently became the means of mastering both objects and other people. Because they argue against foregrounding the subjectivity of the Author in favor of the importance of discursive constructs as influences on texts, Barthes and Foucault have often been read as if they deny the achievements of individuals of stature, and instead position them as fully formed by discourse without any personal subjectivity or agency. Some fear that to argue that people are socially constituted is to deny the abilities of individuals to act in the world. To point to subjectivity and agency as social, rather than stemming from a unique individuality, however, is only to deny specific kinds of atomizing humanist ideologies that permeate established ways of appreciating texts, not the ability of individuals to “intend” and “act.”11 Authors find intellectual, political, and discursive problems to solve, think about and inscribe in texts. They fulfill generic expectations and alter them. Writers must use the available tools in the arenas that are open to them to survive in—much less be significant to—their society. In their written work and their oral interviews, they select from a limited range of tropes and rhetorical strategies and deploy the ones that might best communicate their ideas and self-images. Authors can “replay” and “resignify” the theoretical positions that constitute them, but they cannot “preside over” them (see Butler, 1995 “Contingent”). Conceiving of writing without focusing on its origins in an individuating consciousness can be very difficult, because as Foucault would argue, contemporary discourses concentrate so much on that way of talking about texts. Nevertheless, many scholars and rhetoricians—

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

106 Authors on Writing

including those who are not poststructuralists—have tried to account for the shaping force of discourse on subjects. Kenneth Burke deploys the metaphor popularly known as “Burke’s parlor,” emphasizing the pre-existing discourses of social life as the context for subjects to speak.12 The scene of “Burke’s parlor” situates authors and everyone else in a conversation about intellectual labor, about writing, about creative processes, that has been going on and will go on. The positions that people take in that conversation are, necessarily, determined by the nature of the conversation that they hear. If they start to talk about something else, others may not understand what they are trying to say. If they try to change that conversation, the means that they adopt for doing so can become part of the conversation. Burke argues that what people say is intelligible only within certain conversations, their choices of what to say dependent on available discursive positions. The conversation constrains them and enables them. People do not form the conversation in isolation; the conversation also “forms” them. A focus on the special subjectivity or complex interiority of individual authors has tended to obscure the shared social life and labor that creates our understanding of artistry and authorship. Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse (1992) present a productive alternative to this way of thinking in their attempt to “de-mythify” the authorship of Milton. Armstrong and Tennenhouse argue that Milton’s singular position in British literary history as “the first Author” depends more on myth than on fact because it elides important aspects of his career and extends backward in time practices that emerged from his writing, that were created by the writing and thus could not have been the cause of it. In an argument that draws on Foucault and Barthes, they illuminate the dangers of mystifying and mythifying either the author or writing itself: It is all well and good to argue, as poststructuralism has done, that writing produces its author rather than the other way around. It is just as important to understand that writing did not always imply such a source. For only by dispelling the universality of “the author” can one understand the significance of writing that called authors— countless varieties of them—into being. But there is still a trade-off involved in demystifying the author, as there is, no doubt, in any act of demystification. The magic simply gets relocated, and theory tends to mystify writing instead of authors. (Armstrong and Tennenhouse, 1992, p. 4)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor 107

Repositioning or “de-mythifying” authorship, Armstrong and Tennenhouse argue, is not to remove all sources of “mythification” in accounts of knowledge creation, for the “mythification” may become displaced on to discursive signs or intellectual labor. Armstrong and Tennenhouse ask us to move beyond idealized notions of authorship and writing to confront the complexities of actual intellectual labor: But concealing that [intellectual] labor has not at all curtailed its historical effects … Its disappearing act only mystifies the way intellectual labor works and the power it wields in modern cultures. Such labor disappears into writing, which in turn melts either into things or else into thin air, where it seems to refer to nothing at all. Indeed, if history is the story that scientific cultures tell about themselves, then the story apparently does its work by simultaneously empowering writing and rendering it transparent. The story of intellectual labor consequently remains to be told. (Armstrong and Tennenhouse, 1992, p. 7) Telling the story of intellectual labor requires new sources of evidence and new methods of analysis. Unlike cultural stewardship which seeks to identify the particular writers whose intellectual labor should be valorized and to establish methods for exegesis or interpretation, analysis of writing practices and writing cultures compels us to think clearly about writing as intellectual labor, as a shared social discourse shaped by many speakers, and as a social pedagogy with important consequences for our collective social life. Some worry that this approach deflects attention away from considerations of literary excellence. Yet when questions of literary quality form our exclusive focus, we may forget that the standards we use to evaluate particular classic works as transcendent have been produced socially and historically. For example, contemporary and historical celebrations of artistic texts as expressions of individual genius reflect and shape an elaborated biographical apparatus that purports to revere art by associating it with the efforts of an inaccessible elite. Yet this apparatus actually obscures how writing works within a system of social exchange that entails production, distribution, consumption, and evaluation. The cultural products that secure most attention do so less through continual reconsideration and reaffirmation than through practices that reflect and re-accentuate previous decisions about quality. As Gary Taylor (1993) argues, prior canonization works to separate authors of roughly similar quality according to what sociologist

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

108 Authors on Writing

of science Robert Merton (1973) calls “the Matthew effect”: “Unto those who have, more shall be given.” Taylor argues that canonization functions as part of a cyclical structure that enforces a “mechanical process of reinforced iteration” (p. 132), rather than renewed inquiry into the basis of literary value.13 Michael Bristol’s studies of authorship in the theater in early modern England lead us in a more productive direction. Drawing on Bakhtin, Bristol argues for a necessary link between bourgeois conceptions of the “author” and “authority,” but with an emphasis on the diffuse authority of our shared social life and the democratic possibilities of writing and speech. Authors influence others, disseminate opinions, thoughts, and feelings. Consequently, all speakers and writers might enfranchise themselves through writing. Bristol notes … the word “authority” is derived from Latin auge¯re “to grow, increase, augment.” In this sense it refers directly to any power of creative utterance or action, and the gradual augmentation of persons through social experience. Authority is thus the quality or state of being an author, that is, an originator, creator, one who conceives and brings to completion even the humblest social initiative or artistic project. In this sense, authority is not a special talent or the exclusive privilege of a small minority of great statesmen and artists, but is, on the contrary, initially dispersed among all men and women with basic linguistic competence. (Bristol, 1985, p. 22) Yet the drama of individual genius still holds a central place in popular discussions of literary achievement, creativity, and writing processes. The search for special subjectivities in authors truncates one of the most important steps in coming to understand writing processes as social labor. It presupposes the singularity or exceptionality of the person and the processes by which texts deemed valuable are produced. To discover or analyze the writing behaviors and events that lead to the production of texts, however, one cannot presuppose that exceptional texts have been produced in exceptional ways. As Doctorow’s comment about compost heaps indicates, these distinctions are often simply presumed. Without comparative empirical study, we have no idea whether the procedures of renowned and pedestrian writers differ. The emphasis, particularly in literary criticism, on writing as an activity that constitutes identity, that offers fundamental truths about humankind and contains revolutionary or transformative possibilities,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor 109

demarcates such texts from more everyday uses of writing. Yet this distinction stems from a confused premise. Texts now deemed superbly iconoclastic, potentially subversive, revolutionary, or transformative often began as part of the day-to-day writing of those who sought to use their intellectual labor for daily financial support. Under such circumstances, the division between transformative and everyday writing practices is inaccurate, reflecting decisions by scholars about the nature of specific texts, rather than about the general traits of either texts or processes. Further, by implying that the unique and original shaping of such texts was implicit at the time of written production, this division encourages us to overlook connections between the processes of canonized texts and those of everyday writing.14 Studies of writing as shared social labor necessarily must go beyond persons and products deemed extraordinary to encompass the quotidian and social nature of activities of written production, precisely to determine what it is people do when they write. The challenges raised by Barthes and Foucault can help us connect the specialized arguments of literary and philosophical theorists with the research and working decisions of a range of scholars concerned with intellectual labor and writing endeavors. To the degree that the “author-king” blocked from recognition the “author populis” (if you will), its proposed “death” encourages a new foregrounding of authorship as engagement in everyday writing activities. The Authors whom Barthes and Foucault appeared to have wanted to “de-throne” or “reposition” are not the “ordinary” (or exceptional) people who engage in writing activities as they are figured in this project, and certainly not the students who many literary and composition instructors must teach to write. The very gap between such ordinary authors and the transcendent ahistorical conception of Authors of the grand literary traditions reveals the complications of establishing conceptions of authorship on such ideals, then hinging conceptions of intellectual labor to the authorship of the exceptional. To examine processes of writing as if initiated only at the level of the sovereign individual self is to posit a truncated view of intellectual labor. Notions of authorship—and therefore notions of the “process of writing”—have been extended to a variety of kinds of writers and texts. Mental labor and activities of writing characterize many jobs in an information economy. Scientific papers are signed by increasing numbers of authors, occasionally as many as 200 or more. Rhetoricians of inquiry have studied the discursive and argumentative qualities of academic texts, resituating scholars in their role as authors. Com-

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

110 Authors on Writing

position specialists, concerned with how literacy connects to everyday lives of readers and writers, have undertaken studies of the writing behavior of students, journalists, those in business, engineering, and the professions, observing their textual negotiations as writing processes. Graffiti writers have established themselves as an activist community of signed artists, claiming a kind of authorship. Some, such as Basquiat, have become famous. The genre of discourse this project studies—interviews with published authors—appears in print regularly, and authors of all types are interviewed for their comments about writing and its activities. Foucault himself ended his career by publishing largely in the dialogic genre of interviews. Those responsible for research on and the teaching of writing to students also concern themselves with the authorship of their students and how that relates to wider notions of authorship. Textual analysis can now be seen as relevant to texts far beyond the imaginative or canonical. Recent explorations in cultural studies see significance in explorations into general and even commercial discourses. To situate, respect, and enjoy this proliferation of authorship does not require hostility to what some call “high culture” and to the rewards of intellectually complex reading. Quite the contrary. It does require, however, that we examine the connections between those who write imaginative texts for publication and those who do everyday writing. To sever such kinds of thinking and textual production from each other suggests our limited knowledge of and interest in intellectual labor and how people go about it. This present study of writers’ interviews intends to open up the discussion of what it means to write in contemporary society, to think of oneself as a writer, to think of oneself as a person engaged in the work of composing texts. Many kinds of social subjects write, not just the transcendent humanist subject idealized in post-Enlightenment discourse. The subject that is now the site of so much argumentation in scholarly circles has seldom been seen solely in narrow and uncontested terms and has historically served many purposes. The “subject” of modernity is not a unitary one, though some have been tempted to conclude otherwise. There are, for example, important differences among the Kantian subject, the Cartesian cogito, and the subject of empiricism (Hekman, 1995, p. 194). To call into question the nature of the modernist subject, then, does not repudiate subjectivity or deny individuals agency or dignity; rather, it disrupts our taken-for-granted notions about the subject, in order to reposition it for examination.15 Asking about the genealogy, uses, and effects of the subject makes it more important, not less.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship and Intellectual Labor 111

The search for exceptional subjectivity and solitary author heroes pervades interview discourse, but it leads us in the wrong direction. A binary opposition between the local practices of exceptional individuals and abstract principles about universal writing does justice to neither the local nor the universal. Instead, we need to see how the dialectical and dialogic tension between accounts of individual experience and empathic responses to those accounts reveals writing to be both individual and collective, an activity shaped by discourse as well as shaping it, and an amalgam of practices and processes that we comprehend only within the context of our shared social understandings about what writing is, who does it, and how.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

112 Authors on Writing

Authorship in an Economy of Promotion

Published interviews with authors circulate within an economy of promotion. Interviews advertise specific authors and texts, but they also help construct a more general sense of what writing is, who authors are, and how they do their work. An author’s interview never exists in isolation, but functions rather as a node in a complex network of conversation, communication, and commerce. George Plimpton, commenting on the genesis of The Paris Review, notes that the original design of its now-famous series of interviews with authors was significantly promotional: … while the magazine hoped to present material that was new and uncommercial, it was willing to try commercial devices in order to get the contents read by people and talked about. [Malcolm Cowley] produced a motto which was appropriate enough: “Enterprise in the service of art.” Some of the earliest decisions regarding the magazine were based on that—the design of the magazine, the use of artwork inside and on the cover. Even the instituting of the Art of Fiction series—interviews with distinguished writers on their craft—was done in part so as to be able to put a famous name on the cover to entice readers to buy the magazine and by indirection, having read the interview, to wander on and read the work of someone just starting off and with no reputation at all. (Plimpton, 1978, p. 527)1 Thus, The Paris Review interviews came into existence only in part for their “substance” and “subject matter,” to provide information about craft. From the perspective of the editors and publishers, the names of famous authors served to sell the magazine itself, acting as a lure to 113

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

7

entice readers to purchase the work of lesser-known writers whose poetry and fiction appeared inside. The magazine functions both as a venue for the arbitration and negotiation of literary value and as a commercial enterprise designed to identify and address a specific market niche. Like the Times Literary Supplement, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times Book Review, and the book review section of local newspapers, The Paris Review creates and draws in a primary market. Its selection of authors interviewed, no less than its poetry and fiction, hails a certain kind of reader (Wernick, 1993). Authors may differ according to how they are promoted and distributed, but not whether they are promoted or distributed. Science fiction writers and philosophers generally seek different audiences, but neither escapes promotion. Scholars writing for specialist readers generally do not see themselves “selling” their essays and books, but academic publishing serves as one of a large number of “niche” markets that, like other markets, are structured by the circulation of publicity, commentary, reviews, and interviews. When interviewers ask authors to speak about the things that have influenced their writing or to comment on other contemporary writers, the conversational exchange activates a network of promotion, past and present. Authors are “doubly implicated” in promotion, as both the “agent” of a practice stimulating the circulation of his or her texts in competitive exchange, and as the “object” of such circulation, i.e., the promotional “sign” produced by the imaging and publicizing of the author’s name. There is no place within the publishing world that is outside the systems of promotion. To decide not to engage in a promotional tour or to turn down a series of interviews declines a specific form of promotion without denying the system of promotion itself, because it cannot be denied. Authors from previous eras sometimes seem virtuously innocent of the culture of promotion. The different markets and promotional cultures of their own eras mark them with special insulation, preventing them from being implicated in the same system of consumption as authors writing today. Yet imputing innocence to them often only serves to give their works even greater market value today. Currently available texts by authors from previous eras circulate in the same system as books by contemporary authors. A critical, biographical, or historical text that focuses on a past author serves to “promote” that author—as well as its contemporary producer—just as a book review by one contemporary author of another contemporary author “promotes” both of their texts.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

114 Authors on Writing

A historical example of the culture of promotion helps clarify links between the past and present. Willy, husband of the novelist Colette, developed a successful literary industry in fin de siècle Paris (Meltzer, 1994). Colette’s work, written at his demand, was published under his name. When the first novel written by Colette appeared, Willy generated attention for it by “planting” positive reviews in major newspapers written by friends. Others, he wrote himself under pseudonyms (as Walt Whitman had done in the mid-nineteenth century). Willy also coordinated a campaign to sell associated promotional objects such as postcards of himself and Colette, a campaign very successful in its own right and useful in increasing sales of the books. Willy used his name as a promotional device, each product and act of celebrity furthering his reputation. Though himself “pathologically unable to write,” Willy assiduously exploited Colette’s authorial activities. The resources available to Willy, however, exceeded the writing labors of merely one woman. A “stable” of ghostwriters (not coincidentally, Meltzer notes, called, in French, nègres) worked under his supervision. According to Meltzer, Willy worked with his slaves by rotation. That is: he would write to one nègre and ask him to produce a story on a topic Willy judged fashionable. Upon receiving the text, he would send it to another nègre as if he had written it himself, with pleas for editing (“I have a horror of going over my own prose.”). The amended text was then added to an entirely different piece being worked on by yet another nègre, and so it would continue until the true authors could no longer recognize their own work. Everything appeared, of course, with the name of Willy as author. (Meltzer, 1994, p. 97) Willy’s elaborate, if deceptive, network of production and promotion reminds us that selling magazines and books (and therefore authorship) has been infused with business practices for many years. Nefarious or questionable practices, which one might be inclined to blame on the excesses of contemporary authorial promotion, occurred as well in earlier periods. An economy of promotion sells values as well as texts. Arguments for requiring “Shakespeare” in the curriculum seek to sell to cultural authorities, parents, schools, and students not merely the texts of Shakespeare, but various values that have been—and in the process of promotion are being—attached to his name.2 Part of what is being sold is the complex role of Shakespeare as a representative of particular

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship in an Economy of Promotion 115

traditions of literary history.3 This connection between the name of “Shakespeare” and what are argued to be associated values can be used to promote still other values and commodities. In the case of E. D. Hirsch’s arguments and the book available for purchase promoting them (1987), authors’ names (such as Shakespeare’s) and bits of quotations and scraps of knowledge are promoted not for their own sake, but for their purported ability to cement together a society seen as chaotic and disintegrating.4 The promotion of authors, texts, and associated values also applies to writers of rare and esoteric types. Their books and names are sold as instruments of culture and of ways of life, as part of the materials that individuals collect to form their own self-images, installing their own senses of self by participating in worlds shaped by produced and consumed cultural objects.5 Some people may wish that the authors they value were not involved in an economy of promotion, on the assumption that such involvement devalues them. Others attempt to use the promotion of authors they dislike to condemn those writers as base, mercenary, shallow, and in some cases, hypocritical.6 Yet to assume, as some of these critics do, that it ever could be possible to stand outside this system of circulation (yet be known and read), evidences its own kind of blindness and even bad faith. Understanding authorship and interview discourse in a system of promotion requires us to distinguish between the specific individual person who writes and the authorial name. The author’s name serves as an identification tag that designates the written word as owned property and functions commercially as the locus of commercially valuable recognition, reputation, and reward (Wernick, 1993, p. 87).7 In market exchanges, the author’s name functions as a brand name. People expect continuity and similarity from the authors to whom they return again and again.8 This accounts for such phenomena as the new production of books sold under the name “V. C. Andrews” for a number of years after that author’s death. Publishers who de-emphasize the authors of their books (such as Mills and Boon, and Harlequin and their popular romance novels) shift the guarantee from the author’s name to that of the publisher (Philips, 1990). The trajectory that established authorial names as promotional devices has developed increasing salience and strength. The name of the author serves as a nexus of perceptions. When writing enters the relations of exchange, where social life is understood to be based on competition among individuals for money and status, then publishing

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

116 Authors on Writing

becomes a business, and authorship a profession or career. Whatever value the name has becomes directly implicated in exchange. A distinct kind of promotional practice intervenes in a process of “artificial imaging” of the author’s name. Authors’ interviews form an identifiable part of a broader practice that includes direct advertising, booksignings, lectures, and reviews. The author’s name becomes part of a property network establishing title to a text, but also a kind of promotional capital, a system of identification and publicity.9 The relatively malleable authorial name may be drawn upon to promote values and ways of life outside the immediate realm of “the literary.” Time magazine presented the mid-century American literary figures Cheever, Updike, and Marquand as accessible, ordinary, representative figures, who drew on particularly American themes to reflect a collective national mood. Yet authors from other countries, such as Shaw, Malraux, Joyce, and Solzhenitsyn, appeared in Time as isolated intellectuals, aloof and difficult (Moran, 1995). The role of the “signature” of the author has changed over time. Foucault shows how authors from different periods have “signed” very different kinds of texts (1977). The promotional significance of the authorial name that binds literary interviews to an economy of promotion is a specifically contemporary outgrowth of a fairly recent model of reputation. As Howard Becker argues with regard to “art worlds” in general, “the theory of art which makes it possible and worthwhile to create reputations is not timeless; it arises in societies which subscribe to more general theories emphasizing the individual over the collective, and under particular social conditions” (Becker, 1982, p. 354). The institutions that produce authorial interviews do so within the context of the economy of promotion that seeks to sell authors’ texts according to qualities that have been verified and validated in social discussion. A new kind of celebrity has developed in the twentieth century, one which focuses on the individual and his or her unique attributes or unique “personality” rather than on the specifics of achievement (Braudy, 1986). This development offers opportunities for reputation divorced from authors’ texts—reputations “consumed” by readers who may have no knowledge of or interest in the texts as texts. Audiences may recognize Hemingway the celebrity without ever having read his stories. They may have read profiles and interviews in a variety of magazines, they may even know his methods of writing (dozens of pencils, standing at a desk), without ever knowing what he writes so assiduously. Other celebrity authors may produce ghost-written works (Earl Mindell, the “vitamin king”), or may be plagiarists (Willy, Clifford Irving).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship in an Economy of Promotion 117

Yet the role of authorial interviews in promotion is not merely a contemporary phenomenon. Joseph Conrad’s career demonstrates his conflict between a commitment to modernist aesthetics and a desire for financial gain. Conrad had not been very successful in the literary marketplace, according to Cedric Watts (1996), so the release of Conrad’s novel Chance was accompanied by a promotional campaign which included interviews with Conrad. The tenor of this campaign, which Conrad willingly advanced when interviewed, was that Chance had been written particularly to interest an audience of women. Watts points out that the novel, like all Conrad’s novels, in fact is oriented toward the interests of men, contains misogynist remarks by the narrator, and satirizes feminism. However, the promotional scheme succeeded in increasing sales of the novel, representing a turning point in Conrad’s success in the marketplace. In the late nineteenth century, the conditions of publicity surrounding authorship began to change in ways that eventually promoted the development of the literary interview. The discussions of the lives of literary figures became popular in both the United States and Britain in response to various conditions promoting growth not only in the publishing of books but also in markets for newspapers and periodicals (see, for example, McDonald, 1997; Ohmann, 1996; Wilson, 1985). The publishing histories of Britain and the United States are not the same, but in both cases new readerships and new forms of communication generated new imperatives that encouraged published writing (Raeburn, 1984, p. 6). As early as the mid-nineteenth century, British and American audiences showed great interest in authors as celebrities, “touring-in-print” the homes of well-known authors (Altick, 1965). Brodhead notes that “Hawthorne began to have his ‘private life’ advertised … as part of the creation of his allure: literary mythologizings of his ‘reclusive’ personality and tours-in-print past his private home began in the early 1850s, with full cooperation from his promoters” (1993, p. 67). By the 1890s, British editor Edmund Yates of the World developed his series of “Celebrities at Home,” which used the material possessions in the home to reveal the creative character of authors such as Tennyson. The places where authors labored drew special attention: “the author’s private ‘workroom’ became one of the most conspicuous objects of public knowledge towards the end of the nineteenth century” (Salmon, 1997, p. 78). Interviews with literary celebrities, drawing on some of the same rhetorical strategies as the “Celebrities at Home,” were part of the new

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

118 Authors on Writing

techniques of “investigative journalism” developed in the 1880s and 1890s (McDonald, 1997; Salmon, 1997).10 The contradictions of contemporary interviews that view authors as both private and public personages were evident in these turn-of-the-century publications. Salmon argues that profiles of authors at home and literary interviews were predicated on rendering the private public—and profitable. The attribution of “sanctity” to the home of the famous author was what established it as valuable and yet at the same time incited its violation. Authors such as Henry James, who published during this period, were highly conscious of and highly ambivalent about the workings of the literary marketplace (see Anesko, 1986; Freedman, 1990; Jacobson, 1983; Pearson, 1997, Salmon, 1997). James’s concern for the ethical issues of privacy related to the new investigative biography and journalism appears in a number of his stories and novels (for example, “Death of the Lion,” “The Aspern Papers,” The Sacred Fount, and The Bostonians). He did allow himself, however, to be interviewed on a number of occasions, including for the genre examining author’s homes, even posing for a picture to illustrate the publication. Salmon, who discusses James’s understandings of publicity as they relate to both fiction and interviews, indicates that James was highly aware of the exigencies and contradictions of this method of literary marketing.11 James’s collected “Prefaces to the New York Edition” of his works later appeared as The Art of the Novel (1934). Critical discussions of these prefaces often consider the implications of the metaphors and language James used to describe his reflections on his own writing, including, specifically, his metaphorical language for his literary endeavors and composing.12 In fact, the prefaces are a productive source of what I have called metaphorical stories about composing processes. Rather than simply declaring the prefaces implicated in literary promotion because they are texts sold as commodities, I want to push the problem a little further. A significant purpose of the prefaces—of James’s discussion of how he came to write his texts and the principles he followed in doing so—was to enhance the value of the edition as a commodity (see Culver, 1985, and Pearson, 1997). Stuart Culver’s discussion of the New York Edition emphasizes this point: The New York Edition is … a luxury item. The novelist published his works in this format to capitalize on the popularity of a particular kind of publishing commodity; the de luxe edition, which flourished on the subscription market from 1880 to 1910, presented the

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship in an Economy of Promotion 119

complete works of noted authors in expensive, ornately-bound and lavishly illustrated volumes… . As a rule these sets were limited in number in an effort to accentuate their claim to embody each celebrity’s unique self. On this popular view, the obligatory prefatory remarks provided by the author exclusively for this edition, authenticated the volumes with the force of an autograph, reassuring the buyer that this was in fact a relic of the great man. (1985, pp. 113–14) I read Culver’s comments as suggesting that the wonderfully productive prefaces were part of the value added to the New York Edition to make it worth its high cost. In that sense, they are certainly as implicated in a system of promotion as rather similar passages on other authors’ literary endeavors drawn from interview discourse. In fact, discourses that make reference to inter-textual networks almost always bear a particular promotional stamp, whether they appear as interviews, prefaces, essays, speeches, or autobiographies. They always make references to other, outside texts. Metaphorical stories about authors’ writing, like all discussions of how authors write, are necessarily situated right at the center of an endlessly interconnected promotional system. Framing the authorial interview within a system of promotion, then, draws attention to the larger discursive context of both naming and writing. It demonstrates how authors’ interviews promote not only the products of a particular author, but the products of other authors, of authoring and reading in general, and of a society engaged in authorship of various kinds. This system of promotion sets authorial interview discourse in an interesting relationship to the authors’ other published texts, but not, I would argue, a wholly “corrupt” one—or at least one not notably more corrupt than that characterizing all other texts in a market economy. Books of poetry and fiction, biographies and scholarly treatises are sold. Also sold are magazines and journals with collections of various texts, often accompanied by advertising (or perhaps, more properly, advertising accompanied by various texts). Under such circumstances, the availability of one text by an author is always also “promotion” for another text by the same author. (The “Also By” list of books in the front matter of many books attests to this self-promotional feature.) Contemporary promotion of authors (for Wernick, book reviews; for this project, authorial interviews) can be seen as “supplements” in the Derridean sense.13 In the absence of the text that authorizes the inter-

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

120 Authors on Writing

view, the promotional text both “takes the place” of (or supplements) other authored texts (so that interviews are read, for example, rather than additional novels or poems or biographies), and takes its own place as revelation of “secrets” about published texts—“subaltern” yet connected to and hooking back into every aspect of the production and the dissemination of commodified texts. The interview “intervenes” to supplement other authored texts, so that readers can read (or re-read) particular texts in the light of the author’s commentary upon them. In so doing, interviews change the meaning of those texts and change readers’ relations to both texts and authors. The literary interview, as supplement, returns to change that which it supplements. Literary interview discourse helps create the sphere of literature that is, by its very presence, constantly being broken down and re-established. These developments do not represent simply more advertising, but rather a cultural-economic regime of objects and signs that cannot be fully understood in the vocabulary of the market’s consumerist rationale. Rather, by exemplifying what Derrida called the “logic” of the supplement, the supplement changes the “original” as it provides the “supplement.” In this context, then, according to Wernick, promotion is something which both completes what the commodity is (as part of its conditions of existence) and (through the ascendancy of circulation) changes it: so radically indeed, that the traditional critique of the market finally dissipates into nostalgia for its lost object; while that object itself—the commodity as a priced item of use—volatilizes as an intelligible category. (Wernick, 1993, p. 100, emphasis mine) Considering interview discourse as “supplement”—rather than “secondary”—to “officially” literary texts can complicate and enrich our attempts to understand how interview discourse shapes and is shaped by an economy of promotion. It is the “specter” of the supplement that becomes useful in this discussion, because it keeps open the trafficking in metaphorical stories and other language shared by both kinds of texts, and it encourages turning back to the “primary” text to question its nature. I propose the notion of “supplement” here to overcome the major analytic problems produced by seeing interviews as “secondary” to the published fiction or poetry or biography, the “primary” text. To describe these interviews as “secondary” does not fully grasp their nature as constructed literary exchange, their role in contemporary literary

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Authorship in an Economy of Promotion 121

culture, or their constitutive role in creating a broader social text about writing. Nor does describing the other published texts as “primary” remove from them the “corruption” of promotion, since in an economy of promotion, all texts play a role in promoting other texts. The function of promoting cannot be the feature that establishes interview discourse as “secondary.” Labeling a poem “primary” and an interview “secondary” confuses prior ways of distinguishing texts with the actual form of presentation of the interview, as a text that parallels or even intensifies the reading of fiction and poetry. Modernist and postmodernist writers are known to write fictional and poetic texts that are read as commentary about the process of writing. Texts about writers may have passages about processes of writing that are based on an author’s own experiences. Authors frequently write essays and criticism that echo the language of interview texts (as well as interview texts echoing the language of a writer’s other published works). The “primary/secondary” distinction is too simple to account for these subtleties. It cannot be assumed that interviews are “secondary” because readers have always first encountered the authors through their “primary” texts. It is quite possible to encounter interviews with authors one has not yet read, inaugurating a relationship rather different from that established subsequent to reading the author’s text. Moreover, some writers—such as Barthes, Foucault, and Spivak—may choose to publish interviews in place of alternative genres. Some nonfiction writers and even poets (Frank Bidart, for example) include interviews as chapters or sections of their books of essays or poems. There are many compilations of literary interviews published as books—sometimes interviews with one author, collected together; other times collections from the same journal, such as the volumes from the famous Paris Review series; sometimes collections based on authors’ genres, ethnicity, location, culture, or common concerns. Their material form renders them available for different kinds of readings according to context. Books that are composed of nothing but interviews and made available for sale that way are themselves a kind of “primary” text. I have argued in this chapter that the authorial interview is deeply embedded in the development of a capitalist commodity system that produces audiences for the consumption of literary and related texts. The appearance of the interview as a vehicle for authorship is not an anomaly in systems of promotion. Systems of capitalist promotion encourage the development of new discourses and new kinds of authorship. Stephen Greenblatt argues that an ability to shift or

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

122 Authors on Writing

Authorship in an Economy of Promotion 123

… from the sixteenth century, when the effects for art of joint-stock company organization first began to be felt, to the present, capitalism has produced a powerful and effective oscillation between the establishment of distinct discursive domains and the collapse of these domains into one another. It is this restless oscillation rather than the securing of a particular fixed position that constitutes the distinct power of capitalism. (1993, p. 266) Greenblatt’s argument emphasizes systemic oscillation: the constant producing as well as obliterating of discourses. Though his interest is in larger discourses, I read it to include the flux of genres and types of writing. The creation and suppression of various kinds of genres and “niche” audiences work to generate specific audiences and supply them with the texts they are led to desire. Such a view reveals the degree to which tension between commercial marketplace considerations and the position of the author can lead to the development, as an authors’ antidote, of romantic theories of individual genius and authorship (see Rowland, 1996), aesthetic theories such as “art for art’s sake” (see Woodmansee, 1994), or publishers’ exploitation of specific texts of “literature” as a high prestige market category (Brodhead, 1993). In the light of this oscillating discourse-creation and genre-creation, authorial interviews do not merely reflect audience and reputation, they also create it. When authors of “minor” genres are interviewed, the interview responds to and establishes the genre as a special sphere of concern, a worthy venue for “authorship.” Interviews including writers of a given locale establish marginal writers as more central, repositioning them as worthy of promotion. To identify interviewers, ethnicities, locales, or other categories as occasions for “authorship,” for interviews with authors, does not necessarily “over-value” the contributions of less well-known genres. Rather it reflects and establishes readerly interest. Such interviews interpellate readers not only as readers in general, but as readers with specific interest in a particular genre. They testify to the authored nature of the genre, repositioning and rendering more substantial the other texts that “authorize” the interview. It is not, then, contradictory—or, rather, it is constituitively contradictory—to see that the relation between texts and their surrounding discourses both adds and subtracts, builds and tears down, authorship

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

move between alternatives has long marked the relations between art and capital.

and individuality. Authorial interviews acknowledge individuality and celebrate its workings, at the same time that they figure authors within a system of promotion that, necessarily, treats them as both unique and as interchangeable. The individual author is both secured and obliterated by the circulation of authorship within a promotional culture.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

124 Authors on Writing

8

In Woody Allen’s “Sleeper,” our hero, having awakened from a cryogenic sleep many years in the future, comes through a bizarre series of circumstances to try to cook with the utensils of a futuristic kitchen. Needless to say, Allen doesn’t quite have the knack for making futuristic pudding: the pudding swells enormously, surging up out of its huge bowl, overflowing, threatening to roll over him, to fill the entire kitchen, perhaps the house. Allen, daunted but brave, snatches up a nearby broom and whaps at the billowing mound, trying to beat it back into its bowl, trying to contain its pulsating, demanding, overwhelming mass. That’s what writing is like for me. Sometimes. At other times I sit at the keyboard, squishing out the last bit of toothpaste from my exhausted tube, wondering whether there’s enough there to do the job, wondering what I’ll have to do to get more—more ideas, more words, more connections, more recollections. Or, desperate for a few suggestions, I wait longingly for the muse— someone else’s muse—to drop by (once I had two kids in college, how could I afford one of my own?). Some of the time, I write about composing processes and how people talk about them, particularly how they use metaphors for composing. I focus on metaphors that published authors use when describing their composing in literary interviews, and the way all of us share these metaphors. We are handicapped when we talk about our writing processes, because writing events are ambiguous, and writing processes abstract, complex, varied, difficult to monitor, remember, and report on accurately. So rather than merely observing and representing our writing experiences, we must “construct” them. 125

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Writing in Earthquake Country

In effect, we all “compose” our conceptions of composing. And in doing so, we rely a great deal on socially shared knowledge—exactly the kind of knowledge that is conveyed by metaphors for composing. While writing about metaphors for composing, I have come to realize the extent to which I compose by metaphor—and by difficult, inadequate, illogical, contradictory metaphor at that. I don’t compose by merely one metaphor, but by many metaphors, some original, others adopted. I discard and take up metaphors as I work, moving fluidly from one to another. Sometimes I choose them voluntarily, and other times, as when I write a la Woody Allen, the metaphors are thrust upon me. My metaphors for composing don’t, of course, have equal status and don’t function in the same way. I use some metaphors to comprehend and give shape to patterns of experience that are not easily labeled and identified. My earthquake metaphor works that way for me: There are times when I write that I have a growing sense of unease, of distrust, of discomfort. It is as though there is rumbling beneath the surface of the text, beneath the surface of my thoughts, my desk, my floor, beneath the surface on which I live. As I continue, focusing on the ideas I am developing, I feel uncomfortable deep down; I sense problems with things that I am not working on, yet working into and working from as I complete the surrounding parts. Though I don’t know yet what is going wrong, somehow I know it is a geological problem, a weighty problem, having to do with how large parts of the text fit together, with the total structure of the text. I am standing on a fault line, feeling the tension, micromovements at a very deep level, as my newly reformed and solidified intentions and the text I have written scrape against one another, like two tectonic plates. I don’t know how I came to see those experiences as earthquakes, though they seemed deep, related to the fundament, independent of me, and potentially damaging. Now, with the earthquake label as a reminder, I am able to identify those vague stirrings and rumblings early on. Knowing what is to come, I can choose what to do about them: I have learned that it is better for me to wait, to let the cracks develop, not to examine what is causing the tension. As the cracks become fissures, I can begin to sense what is wrong with my current structure—what it is not going to do for me, why my increasingly welldeveloped plans are incompatible with the old.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

126 Authors on Writing

But I forbid myself to give more than an occasional glance at my shaky ground, for when the upheaval finally comes, the solutions are usually evident. If I haven’t become too familiar with the problem, haven’t made previous attempts to solve it before the significant oppositions have formed, I can at that point articulate what should be the new “lay of the land.” So my world is firm once again—but only for a while, because I write, as I live, in earthquake country. I use some metaphors for reassurance, to provide a positive view of difficult, discouraging, or uncomfortable moments in composing. For instance, on many occasions I have found myself needing to make a connection between sections of text that are relatively finished. To make logical connections that are related syntactically and lexically to both preceding and following sections is a highly constrained task, and because of the constraints I must work very slowly, very carefully, very consciously. I generally find the process a bit tedious. I concede that the link is essential, yet feel that I ought not to find writing it so difficult, since it is “mere connection”; it seems to demand my full attention without deserving it. I suppose I might call the whole thing “tediously demanding.” My frustration with this task has been much alleviated since I came across an appealing metaphor in an interview with Lawrence Durrell. Discussing one of his novels, Durrell says: “the construction gave me some trouble, and I let in a hemstitch here, a gusset there…” (1963, p. 267). A “gusset” is a small, irregular piece of material which is inserted in an item of clothing to reinforce it or make for a better fit. The small, irregular piece must connect the parts of the garment on all its sides, its edges invisible or inconspicuous. While it may be necessary to insert a gusset if some garments are to look good, be strong, and fit well, undoubtedly it requires difficult, close work on detail—work that is “tediously demanding” in the same way as my writing of connecting links. Thinking of gussets helps me to write those connections: It reminds me that working small and fitting in deserve attention, not just because their result is valuable but because they are intrinsically difficult. It reminds me that the task is finite and identifiable, and that if I just keep working, joining the parts with small stitches of thought and word, the task will get done. And it breaks the isolation of my writing moments, reminding me that I share experiences with others—not only with Durrell and other writers, but also with tailors and seamstresses and other craftspersons who stick with slow, boring tasks so that something will eventually function well.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Writing in Earthquake Country 127

There are other discouraging moments when I can use the support of a positive metaphor, especially during revising. I revise extensively, sometimes doing major reformulation, sometimes minor lexical changes and surface corrections, but in any case writing many drafts. S. J. Perelman on one occasion claimed that he always needed thirtyseven drafts; once, when he did only thirty-five, he found the text to lack a certain “je ne sais quoi.” Without an adequate number of drafts, my texts also lack a certain “je ne sais quoi” (although, as the old joke goes, I don’t know what it is…). Multiple drafts make for interesting developments, but also problems. Particularly disheartening is the moment when the course of revision leads me to throw out the last remnants of my early drafts. I tend to dwell on the waste of all that hard work, its uselessness, the gulf between me and “real” writers, my inability to get anything done efficiently, and, eventually, my inadequacies as parent, friend, colleague, and citizen. Clearly, this situation requires a strong counterargument. John Ashbery’s metaphor of the lost-wax casting process has provided such a counterargument not only for me, but for several of my colleagues in similar situations. Ashbery, discussing his poetic process with interviewers in the New York Quarterly, indicated that his impelling initial lines “often don’t fit into the texture of the poem; it’s almost like some sort of lost wax or other process where the initial armature or whatever gets scrapped at the end” (1974, p. 14). The “lost-wax process” to which Ashbery refers is a method for making castings: a metal mold is built up over a shaped core of wax; when the mold is heated, the wax melts and drains away, leaving the mold ready to shape other materials—jewelry, sculpture, and so forth. The wax is essential to the process, unnecessary to the product. Guided by the metaphor, I can reconceive the role of the early drafts, seeing them as powerful shapers of the final, more finished product. I have also used metaphors in trying to understand or explain my sometimes peculiar writing habits. For instance, I write at night, often writing through until 3, or 4, or 5 a.m. I don’t need to look far for the origin of this habit, given my children. During their early, deluded years they wanted to talk to me; during their teen-age years it was thirty phone calls per movie selected, five friends in for a day of wargaming, or inquiries about which chains to wear for Billy Idol. It seemed that the only time to write was when they were comatose. But once they went away to college and started taking other people’s writing courses, I found that I continued to write at night,

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

128 Authors on Writing

and even all day and all night, working for many hours without interruption. Why? I have came to realize that this is the only way I can become intimate with the text. To do important kinds of writing—to shape the deeper meaning, to push forward the main themes, to write about things that I don’t yet understand—I need to be intimate with the text. I must feel myself wholly within the evolving text, and it within me: we are in each other’s skin, blood, flesh, self. We—text and I—formulate the text within the collaborative matrix of self, text, and context. As I mark and shape the text, so the text shapes me, marks me, sometimes scars me. There is something in me that is never free from the mark of the text and its making. I too am the result of our collaboration. To be intimately within the text is to forget myself in the writing, in the thinking, to focus so deeply on text and ideas as to lose myself, my connections, to exist only within the reality of the “context of the text.” When I am successful, I have moved through a barrier into a different reality, as may occur at the theater or in dreams. Transitions into and out of this reality can be painful: Trying to get in, inveterately self-conscious, doesn’t help, for I can’t get in by conscious decision; only when I forget that I want to be there, in some way commit myself to the writing more than to my ego, do I find myself there. If I gradually emerge, fatigued, the transition is pleasant; but if I must “wake up” (or “wake through”?) suddenly, I am jarred, frustrated, disappointed. Still, long hours of writing and uncomfortable transitions are a small price to pay for this kind of intimacy. For once I exist only within the context of the text, committed to text, not self, then writing is not easy or hard—it is just what there is to be done, everything and the only thing there is. Of course composing by metaphor isn’t always safe (but what kind of composing is?). Though I am aware of the traps found in some of the most popular metaphors for composing, I find that I can still be seduced by their wrong-headed implications. I know that the idea of writing “blocks,” for example, comes directly out of our tendency to use the “conduit metaphor” to describe communication. The conduit metaphor implies that a sender “packages” ideas and sends them through a conduit to a receiver who “unpacks” them (see Reddy, 1993). In the case of writing blocks, the conduits from the source to the writer and the writer to the page are unable to convey the ideas. I’m not saying that the metaphor isn’t “true”—I am sure it is true to many of our writing experiences. But I object to its primacy, first

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Writing in Earthquake Country 129

because it implies overwhelmingly that the opposite of blocked writing is fluent writing, writing that flows forth—a very limited notion of successful composing. And second because it doesn’t seem like a very productive metaphor, providing a limited range of suggestions for helping writing along (mainly various forms of pushing and battering against the impediment). Despite my dissatisfaction with the metaphor of blocking, I sometimes find myself behaving according to it, pushing against something, staring out the window beyond my computer, whining: “I can’t get any ideas,” or “Nothing is coming,” or “This is coming out so slowly.” You’d think I had never heard the word “heuristic,” never heard of Peter Elbow, never thought of creating ideas in writing, rather than merely receiving them. I need to be vaccinated frequently with the essence of other metaphors so I won’t absorb such dysfunctional views. I need to be reminded of writing as building and journeying and giving birth, as electricity and dictation and exploration, as climbing and groping and fighting with recalcitrant texts. I need to play one metaphor off against another to understand and control the complex issues of my composing. Perhaps “vaccination” is a particularly apt term: I’m exposed to analogical diseases in the weak form, so I will be safe learning from and exploiting stronger doses of analogy. Because of the principle of vaccination, I am not particularly concerned about delineating all the ways that individual metaphors are not like writing after all, though I remain alert for metaphors that have dysfunctional effects on me. It is more important to focus on the ways that metaphors are true or not true of my experience, rather than true or not true in an abstract sense. My metaphors are like writing in the sense I am trying to grasp or express. And they can be discarded at any time for metaphors that are more descriptive or more useful. I’m not worried about whether my metaphors, as figures of language, are real. Of course they are real if they serve my purposes. They are real at the moment I have used them for some purpose in conceptualizing or talking about my writing. If I find myself behaving as though writing should “flow” out of me, it is important to remind myself of other, more helpful metaphors. But it doesn’t seem helpful to say that the metaphor wasn’t true—that writing isn’t like that—or that it isn’t real to me—that I didn’t feel that way. To continue to write, to focus on writing, each of us needs to feel empowered. It empowers me to use my metaphors, not to deny them.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

130 Authors on Writing

My metaphorical identification of my experiences brings them more fully under my control. The unifying label of each metaphor makes the reoccurrence of those experiences familiar to me. Review of my favorite metaphors reminds me of my most effective writing strategies. The implications of my metaphors suggest ways of writing, avoiding problems, finding solutions, working through new tasks, keeping myself going. My metaphors for composing haven’t finished educating me, however: I still have much to learn from them about the kind of writer I am, and the kind of writer I can come to be. Some of the metaphors for creativity that writers use are shared by those doing other kinds of creative work—by scientists, painters, architects, musicians—and it is clear from these shared metaphors that creativity involves both active and receptive processes. I have been discussing primarily active metaphors here, partly because I am interested in their implications for controlling writing processes, but also because I seldom have had experiences of transcribing dictation, working in a trance, receiving a gift of ideas, or being a vehicle for others. But since I’d like to have such effortless experiences in the future, I’m always primed for them. And on my bulletin board I keep the following inspiration, from an interview in Crawdaddy in which the disco songwriter Harry Casey, known as K. C. of K. C. and the Sunshine Band, discusses writing one of his most popular songs: “I didn’t really write [that song],” KC confesses, eyes wide, his hand running through still damp hair… . “Some spirit came over the whole room. I mean, my hands were beyond human control… . Like an egg was cracked open and all this music came out.” He shakes his head and says quietly, “Something much greater than me wrote ‘Shake your Booty.’”

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Writing in Earthquake Country 131

Sources The metaphors I examine are drawn from a wide range of literary interviews of the type made famous by The Paris Review. I examined some 3000 interviews with contemporary authors. The interviews were all published from 1965–1995, the majority in the 1970s and 1980s. As I indicate in the chapter on authorship, there have been historical changes in the role of the authorship, writing, and conceptions of the writing process, and my concern is only with contemporary “cultures of writing.” I focus, then, on interview discourse published during the recent past; I suspect that future interviews will reflect changing conditions for writing, particular changing technology. In only about half of the interviews did writers discuss their writing processes—some 1460 interviews with about 1035 different writers. In a few cases, the interview was a translation; such interviews were still used because they represent a contribution to the “cultures of writing” of English speakers. Once translated, they become part of the discourse of writers’ interviews in English—one discursive arena for demonstrating conceptions of composing. My own definition of “author” in this project is both simple and “operational”: authors, for the purposes of this project, are those writers interviewed about their writing activities and ideas, with their interviews subsequently published in journals or books. They are a subset of published writers perhaps most accurately described as “interviewed authors.” Because my interest here is to examine authors’ discourse on the activities of intellectual labor, I sidestep consideration of the quality of the texts authored by those interviewed (whether considered “literary” or not, for example). For my purposes, the structured affinities in the discourse community of writing commentary are more important to understand than the individual achievements and aesthetic triumphs of any one author. Thus this project is not specifically “literary,” though its subject is authorship and representations of the activities of literary writing. Interviewed authors are primarily notable novelists and poets, but they also include journalists, historians, and writers of mysteries, science fiction, and children’s stories, writers often overlooked by studies of writing activity. Thus there are interviews with authors of poetry, fiction, non-fiction, plays, with authors who vary in nationality, ethnicity, and gender. All are published writers; many are distinguished and well-known; most are writers of fiction or poetry, though they often write in other genres also. Some are authors of genre fiction or local authors. Not all “expert,” or “professional” writers are published (skilled engineers writing reports, for example); not all “published” writers are interviewed 132

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Appendix Sources, Selection, Classification of Metaphors

in the corpus (few journalists and historians, for example). Most interviewed authors have written in several genres, some have had several nationalities and written in several languages. My arguments based on this evidence are designed to elucidate concepts of composing specifically in recent contemporary “cultures of writing.” My concern is with discursive practices, with shared social imaginaries inflected by individuals. I move back and forth between the two but am not concerned with developing an understanding of an individual writer or “schools” of shared interests.

Selection The contemporary figurative discourse about “composing processes” or “writing processes” that I examine concerns itself with writerly activity and daily authorial creativity, with reports on the prosaic intellectual labors that make up people’s writing lives. These activities include the various behaviors, acts, events, procedures, and processes that writers engage in order to complete the thinking and inscribing that get words “on the page” and “to readers.” The metaphors I examine situate the act or process of writing as a movement, an action, an integrated sequence of activities, a series of steps, or flux. This “definition” of “writing processes” is necessarily provisional, revealed primarily in the detailed discussion of major themes found in subsequent chapters, but emphasizes engagement with text production, particularly that sustained over time. In selecting metaphors for the writing activities as processes, I exclude figurative language about poetic philosophies, poetic principles, the “product” of writing, readers’ responses, issues of style, and the nature of “craft” judgments (though these all are influential in writing). The following examples demonstrate the distinction I make between metaphors for composing activities and metaphors for other matters of concern to writers. For each author, the first instance that follows is the kind of comment on “process” included in the corpus; the second is the kind of “stylistic” comment that is not. In the examples I provide below, the authors have used similar words but in two different ways. The first, I argue, refers to an activity of thinking and producing text; the second refers, rather, to features or qualities of texts.

Gore Vidal (1) I write in different styles because I hear different voices in my head. (1980, p. 74) (2) It would be boring to have always the same voice, point of view. (1980, p. 74) In the first instance Vidal describes something that happens in the writing process. In the second instance he characterizes an effect of the text.

James Dickey (1) … in the process of writing, it’s absolutely necessary that [the poet] surrender himself and flow with the poem wherever it may go instead of trying to order it in the early stages. (1970, p. 91)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Sources, Selection, Classification of Metaphors 133

134 Appendix

In the first instance Dickey describes something that happens in the poet’s process: he “surrenders,” he moves along with the poem in a certain manner. In the second instance he characterizes an effect of the poem.

Robert Frost (1) A real poem … is a sort of idea caught in dawning: you catch it just as it comes. Think it out beforehand and you won’t write it. (1966 Bracker, p. 276) (2) If there isn’t any surprise for the poet in writing it [a poem] … there won’t be any for the reader. A poem should have a quality of dawning. (l966 McKenna, p. 117) In the first instance Frost describes something that happens in the poet’s process: he “catches” an idea at the moment the idea is coming into being. In the second instance he characterizes an effect of the poem. To understand fully the functions of composing process metaphors within the interview would require considerable knowledge that is unavailable, since part of those functions stems from authors’ intentions and readers’ responses. Authors’ intentions, often complex and to some degree unavailable, cannot be ascertained fully from the text. Readers, of course, don’t respond to texts uniformly: individual readers participate in different social and linguistic communities and interact with the world according to their own knowledge and interpretations. Some readers will recognize instances as “metaphorical puzzles,” while others will consider the statements merely to be accurate representations of “reality.” Not all readers will approve of an author’s invitation to “puzzle out” a proffered metaphor, or approve of the view that the metaphor promotes—and consequently may not feel themselves in community with the writer. When authors intend to be instructive, readers may take them to be patronizing; when authors intend to locate themselves within a tradition of metaphorical stories, readers may taken them to be banal; when authors intend to be novel, readers may take them to be posturing and pretentious. My own efforts are simply those of a relatively practiced interpreter.

Classification I am concerned with the production of the metaphorical stories and their setting rather than with the specifics of readers’ reception of them.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(2) I worked with the anapest a great deal because I liked it, and because it seems to me to have a carrying flow as well as its well-known hypnotic quality. (1970, p. 48)

2

Composing and Metaphoricity

1. Concepts of truth are important to the way we consider subjectivity and vice versa. There are tensions, then, between concepts of subjectivity that reflect this tension between a “deep” truth, perhaps eternal, and the concept of truth as multiple and changing. Arnold’s poem, by using imagery of buried life as well as imagery of the flowing, ever changing river, straddles these notions. I am not arguing that “The Buried Life” is a poem about writing processes, but about language, the self, and selfknowledge—all of which are important to the ways writing processes have been considered. According to Tinker and Lowry (1950), from 1852–1877, line 54 read, “our thoughts come” rather than “our lives come” (the first phrasing encourages the use I make of this section of the poem). Stange (1973) and Levine (1973) discuss nineteenth-century writers’ negative attitudes toward the city. Culler (1966) and Roper (1969) discuss Arnold’s landscapes, including subterranean rivers. Riede (1988) points out that the central metaphor of “The Buried Life,” like that of Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan,” is a “subterranean river that casts up mysterious voices” (p. 192). Miller (1987) discusses the complications of using river metaphors connected to the passage of time. Miyoshi (1969) and Stange (1967) discuss the “divided self,” or the two selves of Arnold, Stange connecting Arnold’s conceptions to those of Freud and Jung. The desire for the mysterious inner gulf that is impossible to know is a motive principle, here, for poetry and for one’s very being. I am not arguing that Arnold was unaware that writing also involved labor. 2. As Etienne Balibar has argued, “All identity is individual, but there is no individual identity that is not historical or, in other words, constructed within a field of social values, norms of behavior and collective symbols…. The real question is how the dominant reference points of individual identity change over time and with the changing institutional environment” (Balibar, 1991, p. 94). The language of “inner” and “depth” so prevalent in discussions of individuality and selfhood resonates with the language of many psychological theories that help shape the way people envision themselves. See Rose (1990) on how theories of psychology shaped the concept of the self; see Pfister and Schnog (1997) for a discussion of the growth of Freudian thinking in America. 3. Christopher Herbert (1991) comments on Wittgenstein’s questioning of the ascription of “depth” to rituals. Wittgenstein noted, when commenting on the Beltane fire-festival discussed in Frazer’s Golden Bough, that the effect of depth is not in the practices themselves, but in the observer’s interpretation of their place in a valued historical tradition. The resonance of depth stems, then, not from the rhetoric of the practices, but from that which the interpreter attributes to the practices (1979). 135

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes

4. Law (1993) provides an account of how empiricist philosophers used metaphors of “depth.” Pfister (1995) shows how the rhetoric of discussions of Eugene O’Neill created an effect of “psychological depth” in the man and his writings. 5. Theories of inspiration—along with all theories of writing and revision—are not prominent in contemporary literary scholarship, where discussions of inspiration are generally subsumed under historical and philosophical theories of imagination. But concepts of inspiration hold great importance in more general contemporary “cultures of writing,” sites for those who read literary texts and interviews with authors or who attend authors’ readings (aspects of the apparatus of authorship I discuss in Part II). The readers of literary interviews may be professional literary or cultural critics, theorists, or analysts, but are far more likely to be those actively engaged as readers with the intent of “appreciating” texts and authors. Metaphorical stories of inspiration enhance readers’ appreciation of texts they have enjoyed and position them as participating by their knowledge in “backstage” events of processes of composing. Readers’ interest in these backstage processes encourages the enormous body of literary interviews published each year. It also forms a ready audience for discussions of creativity or invention that use such accounts as exemplars, a genre that is widespread in popular reading and is also tightly linked to the desire of many readers to become writers themselves; their desire has generated a further industry of self-help books about creativity and writing, many of which draw explicitly on metaphorical stories of inspiration as well as the buried life of the mind. 6. Timothy Clark, briefly discussing accounts of “possession” and “inspiration” by George Sand, George Eliot, Madame de Stael, and others, makes this comment in explaining the appeal of anecdotes of inspiration: there has been a very ready market for these kinds of anecdote. They form part of bourgeois culture’s sacralisation of the writer as unique individual that has made literary culture increasingly part of the tourist industry, in its most obvious form sending the droves up the hill to Haworth parsonage. Romanticism exalted creativity as the object of a new mythology. Anecdotal accounts of moments of sudden illumination in the life of a “great man” have now become a mini-genre in their own right, cited again and again in discussions of creativity or invention … Such accounts, like many nineteenth-century accounts of inspiration, confirm a basically liberal conception of personhood—inspiration is invariably the “liberation” of a supposedly truer or deeper self from out of the pressures of convention, cliché, tradition, false thinking or inauthenticity. The fascination of these episodes lies in their seductive status as modern versions of miracle. Glimpses of the creative process remain like brief visions of the promised land. (1997, p. 5) 7. MUSE OR UNKNOWN CREATOR: “MUSE”: Milton Acorn (1984), John Arden (1966), W. H. Auden (1977), John Barth (1982), Michael Benedikt (1977), Joseph Campbell (1988),

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

136 Notes

Raymond Carver (1988 Schumacher), Robertson Davies (1989), James Dickey (1979), Donald Hall (1974), Jim Harrison (1988), Seamus Heaney (1981), John Hollander (1983), Erica Jong (1974), Norman Lear (1975), Eve Merriam (1987), W. S. Merwin (1984), Stanley Plumly (1989), Tom Robbins (1987), May Sarton (1984), Stevie Smith (1966), Gary Snyder (1977), Elizabeth Spencer (1989), Gerald Stern (1982), D. M. Thomas (1988), Anne Waldman (1979), Theodore Weiss (1985), Nancy Willard (1989), Paul Zimmer (1989). SOME KIND OF “ANGEL” or “SAINT”: John Arden (1966), John Coulter (1978), Allen Ginsberg (1974 Fortunato), Nancy Lemann (1988), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). “THAT THING THAT IS BEHIND THE MUSE, THAT KEEPS IT UNDER CONTROL”: Robert Penn Warren (1966). THE “ORIGINAL MIND IS DOING IT, HAVING GOT IT FROM THE MUSE”: Gary Snyder (1977). “THE COURIER BETWEEN THE REALM OF THE OTHER AND THE PART OF ME THAT WRITES MESSAGES”: Mark Strand (1983). GOD, THE GODS: James Dickey (1979), Lawrence Durrell (1973), Richard Eberhart (1979 Donoghue), Tess Gallagher (1987). A GREAT SPIRIT, A SPIRITUAL WIND: Milton Acorn (1984), Richard Eberhart (1979 Cannito), Allen Ginsberg (1974 Duncan). FAR CHAOS: Robert Morgan (1989). A VERY ANCIENT PRESENCE: W. S. Merwin (1984). AN ANCESTRAL IMAGINATION: N. Scott Momaday (1989). THE MYSTERIOUS OTHER LIFE: Russell Edson (1977). THE PRIMITIVE PROMPTER: Saul Bellow (1977). THE VATIC VOICE: Donald Hall (1983). THE LIZARD: Frederick Manfred (1974). THE “OLD GOAT”: Frederick Manfred (1974). 8. UNKNOWN PLACE: FROM “NOWHERE” OR “SOMEWHERE UNKNOWN”: Max Apple (1987), Lucy Boston (1974), Truman Capote (1977), Rita Dove (1989), Margaret Drabble (1973), John Fowles (1976), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Ryan), Lou Lipsitz (1977), Elizabeth Spencer (1982), William Trevor (1989), James Wright (1975)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 137

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

“OUT OF THE BLUE/ AIR/ SKY”: Lucy Boston (1974), Richard Eberhart (1978, 1979 Cannito), James Laughlin (1989), Jerome Rothenberg (1974), Eudora Welty (1985 Millsaps), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984) “FROM HEAVEN, IT FELT LIKE,” “LIKE THE HEAVENS PARTING”: Truman Capote (1985), Tina Howe (1987), James Leigh (1976), Mary Stewart (1964) “FROM THE BEYOND”: James Laughlin (1989) “DESCENDED,” “FROM THE CLOUDS”: Chukwuemeka Ike (1976), Casey Robinson (1986) “FROM BENEATH”: Wilson Harris (1981). VESSEL, INSTRUMENT, VEHICLE, MEDIUM: These authors include Lilianne Atlan (1987), John Barth (1982), Mick Burrs (1988), Jean Cocteau (1977), Robertson Davies (1989), Richard Eberhart (1978, 1979 Donoghue, 1979 Cannito, 1979 Broughton), Louise Erdrich (1987), Irvin Faust (1978), Russell Hoban (1985, 1987), John Irving (1986), Steve Katz (1983), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Ryan), Norman Mailer (1977), Henry Miller (1977), Gloria Naylor (1993), Gregory Orr (1989), Stanley Plumly (1989), May Sarton (1984), Gary Snyder (1978), Michael Waters (1989), Eudora Welty (1985 Cawthon), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). In the original formulations, invocations to divine sources were part of the poem itself, a gesture of appreciation and desire. Abrams (1953), Clark (1997), and Curtius (1953) all discuss the history of invocations to the muses, including arguments about the muses and their influences in Plato’s Phaedrus and Ion. Curtius notes that the muses were already used “ironically” in the Latin Middle Ages. See also authors such as Michael Baldwin (1966), who discusses how different poems write themselves in different ways; Denise Levertov (1974 Rowe), who talks about writing every poem a different way, and Richard Emil Braun (1976), who describes how different books require different writing processes. Yourcenar also says, “… there’s a different puzzle to be solved each time. Painters will tell you the same thing: every portrait poses new problems. Even Rembrandt must have hesitated when he had to paint a new model” (1984, p. 184). Michael Waters also mentions the “click” of Yeats’s box: “Sometimes I go through 120 drafts, and what a wonderful feeling it is when it’s finally finished, Yeats’s box clicking shut” (1989, p. 242). DICTATION: Milton Acorn (1984), Jean Anouih (1973), Liliane Atlan (1987), Ann Beattie (1987), Paul Blackburn (1974), Joseph Campbell (1988), Fred Chappell (1972, 1973), Sandra Cisneros (1985), Lucha Corpi (1985), James Dickey (1979), Edward Dorn (1980 Bertholf), Richard Eberhart (1979 Donoghue, 1979 Broughton), Phil Hey (1977), Russell Hoban (1987), Gary Hyland (1988), Erica Jong (1974), James Laughlin (1989), Philip Levine (1988), François Mauriac (1977), Henry Miller (1977), Vladimir Nabokov (1972), Gregory Orr (1989), Octavio Paz (1973), Reynolds Price (1972), James Schmitz (1978), William Stafford (1984, 1985), Megan Terry (1987), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

138 Notes

Notes 139

Multiple Truths and Metaphorical Models

1. I have restructured the points of Scarry’s discussion here to make clearer its application. 2. COLLAGES: Donald Barthelme (1982), Raymond Carver (1987 McCaffrey), Donald Finkel (1983), Glenway Wescott (1973). MOSAICS: Liliane Atlan (1987), Donald Barthelme (1982), Alan Burns (1974), Edward Dorn (1980 Okada), W. O. Mitchell (1973), Glenway Wescott (1973), Charles Wright (1988 Oberlin). 3. James Baker Hall is a “specialized junk collector” with little idea of how the junk will eventually be used (1977), Margaret Atwood is a “magpie of prose” (1978), and Alfred Coppel is “an intellectual jackdaw” (1976). OTHER COLLECTORS/GATHERERS: John Ashbery (1974), Austin Clarke (1973), Lawrence Durrell (1973), Murray Edmond (1986), Tess Gallagher (1987), William Gass (1983 LeClair), James Baker Hall (1977), Diane Johnson (1983), Jamaica Kincaid (1993), Lorrie Moore (1988), Vladimir Nabokov (1980), Craig Raine (1981), William Trevor (1989), Jean Valentine (1983), Jack Williamson (1978), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). NOT A COLLECTOR: Craig Raine (1981) says “My poems aren’t written by a magpie collecting fragments; they work as wholes…” (p. 179). ELEMENTS, BITS, PIECES, FRAGMENTS: Byrna Barclay (1988), Donald Barthelme (1982), Ann Beattie (1987), Alan Burns (1974), Lorna Dee Cervantes (1985), Leonard Cohen (1984), Alfred Coppell (1976), James Dickey (1970), Stanley Ellin (1978), Beverly Farmer (1986), Rosario Ferre (1993), Eva Figes (1981), Athol Fugard (1989), William Gass (1983 LeClair p. 152), William Goyen (1976), Kate Grenville (1986), Seamus Heaney (1981), Amy Hempel (1988), Geoffrey Hill (1981), Kazuo Ishiguro (1989), P.D. James (1983), Diane Johnson (1983), Erica Jong (1974), Audre Lorde (1981), Vladimir Nabokov (1977, 1980), Belva Plain (1989), Leo Rosten (1964), Elizabeth Spencer (1982), Tom Stoppard (1988), Eudora Welty (1985 Bunting, 1985 Gretlund), Jack Williamson (1978), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). However, Ann Beattie says, “But I don’t think I’ve ever written anything that’s allowed me to put pieces together. Or maybe I have a psychological problem that makes me resist putting pieces together. But one or the other is true…. I really wish I had never put those pieces together” (1987, pp. 64–65). ASSEMBLE: Walter Abish (1987), John Barth (1982), Edward Dorn (1980 Okada), Donald Finkel (1983), Gabriel García Márquez (1973), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). PUT TOGETHER: Jessica Anderson (1986), Donald Barthelme (1982), Ann Beattie (1987) [not], Philip Booth (1983), Alan Burns (1974), Maria Campbell (1988), Truman Capote (1985), Terry Carr (1978), Kelly Cherry (1985), Robert Coover (1982), John Coyne (1985), Donna DeMatteo (1987), Samuel Delany (1987), Ellen Douglas (1983), Richard Eberhart (1979 Cannito), Thomas Fleming (1989), Robert Frost (1966 Withers) [not], Paul Gallico (1977), Gabriel García Márquez (1973), Pam Gems (1987), Russell Hoban (1985, 1987), Jonathan Holden (1989), Tina Howe (1987), Kazuo Ishiguro (1989), Harper Lee (1964), Philip Levine (1988),

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

3

Ross Macdonald (1983), Gwendolyn MacEwen (1984), Frederick Manfred (1985), Vladimir Nabokov (1977), Stanley Plumly (1989), Ruth Rendell (1983), Marilynne Robinson (1985), Ron Silliman (1987), Elizabeth Spencer (1982), Charles Wright (1988 Ellis, 1988 McBride, 1988 Santos, 1989). FIT TOGETHER: Ellen Douglas (1983), William Faulkner (1977) [bricks], William Gass (1983 LeClair p. 152) [also not], Kate Grenville (1986), Ursula Le Guin (1987 McCaffrey), Barry Lopez (1987), Elena Poniatowska (1994), Leslie Marmon Silko (1993). BRING TOGETHER: Paula Gunn Allen (1987), Byrna Barclay (1988), Mick Burrs (1988), Rosario Ferre (1993), Clarence Major (1973), Rohinton Mistry (1989), Paul Zimmer (1989). PIECE TOGETHER: Rosario Ferre (1993) [quilt], Donald Finkel (1983), James Baker Hall (1977), Amy Hempel (1988) [quilt], William Kennedy (1987), Peter Matthiessen (1989). MELD: Julius J. Epstein (1986), Andrew Suknaski (1988). COHERE: Seamus Heaney (1981), Tom Paulin (1981), Katha Pollitt (1989). MELT TOGETHER: Robert Anderson (1977). MERGE: Max Apple (1987), Geoffrey Hill (1981), Jerome Mazzaro (1977). MIX TOGETHER: Keri Hulme (1986). THREAD TOGETHER: Keri Hulme (1986), Eilis Ni Dhuibnhe (1993). TIE TOGETHER: Denise Levertov (1974 Rowe). PULL TOGETHER: Maria Campbell (1988), James Baker Hall (1977), Clarence Major (1973), Harry Mark Petrakis (1977). COME TOGETHER: Jean Auel (1987), Byrna Barclay (1988), Jean Bedford (1986), Lorna Dee Cervantes (1985), Seamus Heaney (1981), Russell Hoban (1987), P.D. James (1983), Madison Jones (1989), Lorrie Moore (1988), Gregory Orr (1989), Ruth Rendell (1983), Elizabeth Spencer (1982), David Wagoner (1987), Paul Zimmer (1989). GET TOGETHER: Thea Astley (1986), Louise Erdrich (1987), Beverley Farmer (1986), Russell Hoban (1987), Megan Terry (1987). 4. Donald Barthelme hopes that additional material will “accumulate” around an interesting sentence. A process of accretion. Barnacles growing on a wreck or a rock. I’d rather have a wreck than a ship that sails. Things attach themselves to wrecks. Strange fish find your wreck or rock to be a good feeding ground; after a while you’ve got a situation with possibilities. (1983, p. 35) There may well be no recognized “beginning” to a process of accretion, just a continuous pulling together of elements. Gore Vidal notes, in a similarly fishy context: It may be that I am doing something instinctively, a bit the way a coral reef gets made. The little corals do not know, as they cling to the debris of their predecessors, exactly what kind of a creation they are going to make—a barrier reef. (1984, p. 73)

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

140 Notes

May Swenson describes the inception of her poems as a process of accretion (“there will be something there that will attach itself to something else … a kind of concretion will take place” (1977, p. 19), and Wallace Stegner describes it as a way of life: “You have to learn to become flypaper so all dust will stick to you” (1976, p. 177). Other ACCRETION AND AMALGAM: Margaret Atwood (1978, 1988), Byrna Barclay (1988), Donald Barthelme (1982, 1983), Malcolm Bradbury (1985), Alan Burns (1981), Raymond Carver (1987 McCaffrey, 1988 Schumacher), Blaise Cendrars (1977), Lorna Dee Cervantes (1985), Caryl Churchill (1987), Robert Coover (1982), Robertson Davies (1989), Donna de Matteo (1987), Lawrence Durrell (1977), Murray Edmond (1986), Jack Elinson (1975), Louise Erdrich (1987), Anderson Ferrell (1988), Thomas Fleming (1989), Athol Fugard (1989), Allen Ginsberg (1977), James Baker Hall (1977), Wilson Harris (1981), Amy Hempel (1988) [quilt], Geoffrey Hill (1981), Russell Hoban (1987), Richard Hoyt (1987), Chukwuemeka Ike (1976), Eugene Ionesco (1967), Adrienne Kennedy (1987), William Kennedy (1987), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Ryan, 1983), Janet Lewis (1976), George MacBeth (1966), François Mauriac (1977), Emily Mann (1987), Peter Matthiessen (1989), Larry McMurtry (1980), Silvia Molina (1994), Vladimir Nabokov (1980), Kenneth Rexroth (1972), C. H. O. Scaife (1966), Vernon Scannell (1966), Ntozake Shange (1987), Georges Simenon (1977), William Stafford (1972), Mary Stewart (1964), May Swenson (1977), William Trevor (1989), Gore Vidal (1984), David Wagoner (1987), Robert Wallace (1977), Eudora Welty (1985 Ferris), Jack Williamson (1978), Okogbule Wonodi (1976), Charles Wright (1988 Oberlin), James Wright (1984), and Al Young (1973). 5. Studies of metacognitive knowledge on cognitive development, reading, memory, and so forth, have been produced by Brown (1980), Flavell (1976, 1979), and Forrest-Pressley, MacKinnon and Waller (1985). In writing, metacognition has been discussed by Bracewell (1983) and Flower (1989). At one point, it was thought that metacognitive strategies were general, but more recent study suggests that they are “domain-specific”—that ways of reflecting on one kind of thinking may not carry over or transfer to other ways of thinking. A more generalized and accessible discussion of thinking self-reflectively about intellectual labor (not metacognition specifically) may be found in Schon (1983). 6. Barth indicates that he often assumes an ironic cast in responding to interview questions. At another point, he comments: You shouldn’t pay very much attention to anything writers say. They don’t know why they do what they do. They’re like good tennis players or good painters, who are just full of nonsense, pompous and embarrassing, or merely mistaken, when they open their mouths. All sports, for example, all knacks and skills, become second nature with experts. When writers speak of things like inspiration and characters taking over and space-time grids, it’s usually because they don’t know why they do the things they do. And, if you begin to think about it too much, I guess you might tie yourself in knots, like when you think consciously about tying your necktie or tying your shoes. At least I have never heard

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 141

142 Notes

7. I discuss problems in monitoring and remembering writing activities—and the consequent use of a priori theories—at greater length in Tomlinson (1984). I base some of my comments there and in this section on the work of Ross, who discusses the limitations of intuitive judgments (1978 Shortcomings, 1978 Some) and Nisbett and Wilson (1977). Nisbett and Wilson conclude that people have difficulty monitoring and reporting on cognitive processes, therefore resorting to extant theories for explanations. While Nisbett and Wilson’s conclusions have been criticized on theoretical and methodological grounds—by Ericsson and Simon (1980, 1981), Smith and Miller (1978), and White (1978), for example—the strictures of these critics do not suggest that retrospective accounts from writers are likely to be veridical. See also Flavell (1979). 8. In a general way, these mental models might be linked to those discussed in Gentner and Gentner (1983) and Norman (1983), who consider mental models as guides to thought and action. I would also argue that such models are related to the kinds of “schemas” proposed by schema theorists. Schema theory argues that both content and procedural knowledge are embedded in “holistic cognitive structures” that organize abstract concepts, relationships among concepts, and guidelines for using both (see Mandler [1984], Rumelhart [1980], Rumelhart and Ortony [1977], Spiro [1980]). 9. The “trade-offs” and complications of behavioral science research are described in the introductory texts generally taught in the first year of graduate school in sociology, education, and other disciplines. Examples of such texts are Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus (1971), Campbell and Stanley (1963), Cicourel (1964), Kerlinger (1967). 10. The method of metaphor-reading I use does not attempt to resolve tensions between local and global, between exemplars and the larger metaphorical stories they must illustrate and represent. Most scholars in this tradition examine the nature of metaphorical language and conceptual systems. Scholars working in this general tradition include Gibbs (1994), Johnson (1987), Lakoff (1986), Lakoff and Johnson (1980 Metaphors, 1980 Conceptual, 1999), Lakoff and Turner (1989), Quinn (1987), Reddy (1993), Sweetser (1984), Turner (1987, 1991, 1996). Schon’s work (1963, 1993) is also very suggestive. All of the scholars in the tradition I use have a major interest in figures of ordinary conceptual systems. Turner (1987, 1991, 1996) links metaphorical language in historical and literary texts with those ways of thinking that characterize ordinary conceptions. Schon (1963, 1993) examines how metaphorical language of naming and framing influences innovative thinking in public policy and invention. 11. In selecting metaphors for writing processes, I exclude figurative language about poetic philosophies, poetic principles, the “product” of writing, readers’ responses, issues of style, and the nature of “craft” judgments (though these all are influential in writing). See Appendix for examples of the types of comment I include.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

much that any writer has said about writing that didn’t embarrass me, including the things that I say about it. (John Barth, 1972, p. 24).

12. In this general category I would place, for example, information-processing, problem-solving models of composing such as those of Beaugrande (1984), Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987, also Scardamalia and Bereiter [1983, 1987]), and Flower and Hayes (1980 “Cognition,” 1980 “Dynamics,” 1981, also Hayes and Flower [1980, 1983], Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, and Stratman [1986]), or employed by Mike Rose (1980, 1984, 1985). More recently those in cognitive and educational psychology have been both elaborating and refining such models. See, for example, Alamargot and Chanquoy (2001), Kellogg (1994), Rijlaarsdam, van den Buergh, and Couzijn (1996), and Torrance and Galbraith (1999). 13. As Benedict Anderson notes, all communities are “imagined” communities (1983). 14. Bear in mind that one of the reasons why many people might hold that research models, while “simple,” or for some “simplistic,” are yet more “veridical,” more “accurate” about composing, more “true,” than metaphorical models is that they resemble the “scientific” models many valorize. At one point many people “agreed,” and adopted as conventional thinking, assumptions about the primacy of “actual mechanisms” of writing, as if one were able to distinguish an “actual mechanism” from a representation of it. 15. Carol Berkenkotter closely observed and recorded the writing activities of Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist and composition specialist Donald M. Murray, who has also written much about his own writing processes using a variety of metaphors for composing (see Berkenkotter, 1983; Murray, 1983, 1982 Learning). Even with Berkenkotter’s protocol data, what evidence would people need to agree that Donald Murray was truly “tossed in a stormy Atlantic”? Or truly suffering “intellectual indigestion, a strange, rumbling, eruptive discomfort” as his idea grows? (Murray, 1982 “Feel”) How could they then determine what would “count” as an instance of writing—a writing event—that could properly be said to “match” “intellectual indigestion”? It is difficult enough to identify instances of rather well-defined behaviors—such as Flower and Hayes’ instances of goal-setting or other features of speaking-aloud composing protocols. Nonetheless, Murray’s metaphorical stories provide a very vivid stance toward the writing process which encompasses his writing behaviors as a whole, and also reveals the texture of composing moments. Scholars cannot assume something is not an important part of writing processes simply because they cannot “operationalize” it—cannot attach it to a particular behavior (that is a “goal”). This is one way in which cognitive models and metaphorical models are different—cognitive process models move from observations of specific “atomistic” behaviors which are part of the composing process. I find the results of such analyses to be very important, but not to exhaust the knowledge of composing processes that people need. Information about resolutely broad concepts is still important for understanding composing. 16. Note that these problems for information-processing, problem-solving models are not inherent to the models themselves, but to the way they are often perceived and interpreted. 17. As Alfred Schutz noted long ago, “What appears to the observer to be objectively the same behavior may have for the behaving subject different meanings or no meaning at all” (1962, p. 210).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 143

144 Notes

Metaphorics of Embodied Labor

1. Brodkey indicates that her argument about the problems of such representative anecdotes is similar to that of Susan Sontag in On Photography (1973) and John Berger in About Looking (1980). She finds their arguments about photographs applicable to discussion of the scene of writing. 2. Many books on material conditions of written production is concerned with the history of the book and exigencies of publication. These are quite interesting but not directly relevant to the relationship of bodies, tools, and other materialities during authorial composing. I have located several that do move closer to the physical events of writing. Writing Matter (Goldberg, 1990) includes discussion of the English Renaissance history of writing tools as extensions of the hand into the world. Language Machines (Masten, Stallybrass, and Vickers, 1997) analyzes technologies of literary production, including pens, presses, screens, and voices. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter (Kittler, 1999) provides insight into the development of the typewriter and mentions its use by Samuel Clemens, whose Tom Sawyer, Kittler reports, was the first typescript in literary history. The Pencil (Petroski, 1990) reminds us that writing implements that are mundane to us now needed to be developed and perfected; Petroski explains the improvements to the pencil made by Henry David Thoreau, whose family business was pencil manufacture. 3. For example, Frederic Jameson can be seen as attempting to “protect” labor from being diminished by a kinship with intellectual labor in The Political Unconscious (1981). He criticizes as “intellectually dishonest” homologies by Althusser and others that “assimilate” the “production” of texts to the production of goods by factory workers: “writing and thinking are not alienated labor in that sense, and it is surely fatuous for intellectuals to seek to glamorize their tasks—which can for the most part be subsumed under the rubric of the elaboration, reproduction, and critique of ideology—by assimilating them to real work on the assembly line and to the experience of the resistance of matter in genuine manual labor” (p. 45). Jameson’s negative comment on such homologies relies on assumptions about the distribution of “glamour” and about what kinds of labor count as “real” and “genuine.” The claims made by writers’ metaphorical stories about their production of texts appear a rather different phenomenon. 4. WRITING IS MINING: Other writers also make reference to the process of mining when describing their writing activities. Thomas McGuane (1987) feels that as a writer of fiction, he is “trying to mine” “a crisis lode.” David Storey considers his the work of a “prospector” with “nuggets” and “claims” (1973), and David Ignatow came “to a whole mine of unexplored stuff” (1979). D. M. Thomas (1988) is “mining” when he writes. Drawing on his family knowledge of Welsh mining, Thomas calls himself the “grass captain,” the person who was in charge of the miners, but did not have the “lousy job of actually going down” in the pits. W. O. Mitchell says he is “prospecting” himself (1973). Working a rich “lode” or “vein” are Margaret Walker Alexander (1983), Martin Amis (1985), Stanley Elkin (1983), and Katherine Anne Porter (1977). William Goyen’s interviewer remarks that Goyen “seems to be mining [his] subconscious” (1980). Other miners include Robert Coover (1982), John Graves (1980), Peter Levi (1979),

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

4

5.

6.

7.

8.

Michael McDowell (1985), Andrew Suknaski (1988), and Edmund White, who “quarries” unpublished novels for his new work (1988). But William Stafford does not plan to “mine” his journal for poems (1983), and Jean Fritz complains that she is “not one of those people who can mine for ideas” (1974). Robert Bloch, creating a mixed metaphor, indicates that he “had pretty well mined the vein of ordinary supernatural themes until it had become varicose” (1985, p. 15). WRITING REQUIRES DIGGING, DREDGING: Among related metaphors, writers “dig,” and “dredge” for ideas. Thea Astley, when asked if she found writing arduous, replies “Oh yes, it’s yakka, pit-digging” (1986, p. 64). Others who “dig”: Edmund Blunden (1966), Fred Chappell (1972), Anne Commire (1987), Helen Garner (1986), Beth Henley (1987), David Ignatow (1979), Larry L. King (1972), Doris Lessing (1974), Olga Masters (1986), James A. Michener (1978), Jerome Rothenberg (1963), Margery Sharp (1964), Stevie Smith (1966), Wallace Stegner (1985), William Styron (1978), Andrew Suknaski (1988), Lew Welch (1976), Eudora Welty (1985 Millsaps). Others who “dredge”: Fred Chappell (1973), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Boyers, 1983), Keith Laumer (1978), Jerome Rothenberg (1963), Robert Silverberg (1978), Robert Penn Warren (1977). Others occasionally “exhume” (Robert Graves, 1977), or “excavate” (Kaye Gibbons [1993], Harold Pinter [1981]). Reddy contends that some 70 percent of English expressions about communication is consistent with the conduit metaphor, providing systematic and coherent structure for conceiving communication. Reddy criticizes the conduit metaphor for limiting ways that people think about communication. Lakoff and Johnson (1980 Metaphor) elaborate discussion of the conduit metaphor. Recent discussion has clarified and extended the analysis of the conduit metaphor, questioning some of Reddy’s original claims, particularly about its pervasiveness. Grady (1998), for example, extends the analysis to clarify the relationship between the conduit metaphor and other metaphors, provides an account of its motivation, and explains the pattern of elements that are mapped onto the target domain. Grady indicates that Brugman (1995) argues that “Reddy’s data were drawn from a very atypical sample of text, and it was therefore misleading to draw any conclusion about the pervasiveness and harmfulness of the metaphor on the culture at large” (p. 208, f. 2). The kinds of examples provided by Reddy are, however, quite typical of the discussions of communication found in the discourse of writers and teachers of writing. Goosens, focusing on metonymic underpinnings specifically of the metaphor of “container,” seems to assume that “natural” language is unlikely to cause problems. He states: “My general conclusion, therefore, is that the container metaphor, which is the core of the conduit metaphor, relies on a natural conceptualization process, and can therefore hardly be the blind alley that will necessarily lead us astray, as Reddy has it” (1994, p. 393). Goosens appears to rely here on an insufficiently interrogated notion of “natural.” IDEAS ARE SUBTERRANEAN: So Erica Jong must work “in a subterranean way” (1974). Others: A. R. Ammons (1983), Hortense Calisher (1977), James Tate (1984), Charles Wright (1988 McBride). IDEAS ARE UNDERGROUND: Raymond Carver (1988 Stull), Doris Lessing (1982), Joyce Carol Oates (1974), Charles Wright (1988 McBride).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 145

9. IDEAS ARE BURIED: Stanley Kunitz’s poems have a “buried life in the mind” (1974 Fortunato). Others: Mel Brooks (1976), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Boyers, 1974 Fortunato, 1974 Ryan), Ursula Le Guin (1987 McCaffery), Anne Sexton (1977), Edmund White (1987). 10. ELECTRICAL: Eudora Welty, too, can find the words suddenly “electrical” (1982). The charge may provide impact and impetus, but when it is gone, the energy is lost as when Lawrence Durrell finds the electrical charge “drained” (1973). 11. ERUPT: The figure of volcanic eruption is also used by John Berryman (1977), Lawrence Durrell (1977), Richard Eberhart (1978), Carter Revard (1987), and Armonía Somers (1985). On the other hand, George Seferis says “Of course poems do not appear like an eruption by a volcano; they need preparation” (1977). 12. EXPLODE OR BLAST: Ray Bradbury (1980), Eleanor Clark (1981), Philip Levine (1988), Frederick Manfred (1974), Rachel McAlpine (1986). 13. BURST FORTH (or OUT): Fleur Adcock (1986) [surge], Alfred Bester (1978), Hayden Carruth (1977), Raymond Carver (1987 O’Connell), Juanita Casey (1972), Maria Irene Fornes (1987), Joan Givner (1988), William Golding (1970), Erica Jong (1989), X. J. Kennedy (1977), Barbara Kingsolver (1993) [vent], Doris Lessing (1988), Philip Levine (1988), José Montoya (1985), Joyce Carol Oates (1985), James Reiss (1977), Carter Revard (1987), Anne Sexton (1977), Eudora Welty (1982, 1985 Ferris). 14. PRESSURE: Isaac Asimov (1980), Ray Bradbury (1980), Christopher Isherwood (1977 Bailey), B. S. Johnson (1981), Norman Mailer (1977), Joyce Carol Oates (1974), Muriel Rukeyser (1974). 15. Paul Theroux, for example, indicates that he begins without knowing his journey. So I never begin a book—or even a story, for that matter—knowing how it’s going to end, or knowing what I’ll encounter along the way. I set off, first in The Great Railway Bazaar and then in The Old Patagonian Express, believing I was going to find something out. I didn’t have the slightest idea of what I was getting myself into … (1984, p. 251) Tess Gallagher describes the sensation of prose writing as “lostness” or exploration. Prose is maybe connected to my exploratory ambitions[;] … allowing yourself to get lost for a while and then trying to find your way out. I love prose for that lostness. I don’t know where I am in it. I could go one way, I could go another. Then having to make a decision to go, and follow one possible direction out, the consequences of having made that decision. (p. 168) … My sense of [writing] fiction now is more of a pioneer experience, more of struggling, more of being lost, more of exploration. (1987, pp. 168, 175) 16. Harry Mark Petrakis uses the journey metaphor to show that his destination was the first thing he knew about his book. He knows the goal, not the nature of the journey.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

146 Notes

I fell asleep and dreamt Kazantzakis’ story of the thrush. And when I woke I knew, a year before I ended the book, that that would be the end of the book. I wasn’t sure how I would work it out… . And from that point on—though there was much work, much labor ahead of me … . It was like when you’re struggling through a very dark forest and you see a small light, a beacon. And I felt, somehow, that Kazantzakis had been my beacon …. (1977, p. 119, second and third ellipsis in original) 17. Walter Abish indicates that he exploits a difficult journey: For me there is little freedom once I have selected a system. One might say that I am imprisoned by it. Indeed, I choose systems because from the start they present a journey past and over obstacles … Each obstacle creates a kind of anxiety, presents a problem that must be surmounted. If the obstacle is an intrinsic element of the system, it cannot be avoided; one is boxed in. … For instance, I kept banging my head against a wall trying to extricate Ulrich from Switzerland, at the end of “The Idea of Switzerland.” I simply did not know how to get him out. … The struggle to overcome the structural barriers I had devised for the text was my way of “controlling” and “dominating” a difficult text. (1987, pp. 18–19) Elizabeth George Speare sees the need to write a “bridge” over a “gap”: Sometimes I reach a blind spot, a sort of gulf, and for weeks I cannot see how I can possibly get my characters across to the other side where I want them to be. But sooner or later, almost by magic, a bridge appears. Some bit of history, some ancient custom, or perhaps just the sort of person one character has turned out to be suggests a way, and presently we are all safely across. (1974, p. 335) 18. Tom Stoppard uses two such metaphorical stories in one interview. When The Real Inspector Hound is over, and one sees the corpse had to be Higgs … dovetailing … In fact you write away into a tunnel, you have a corpse on the floor, and you don’t know who it is or what to do with him, and suddenly you say “HIGGS!!!” (1974, p. 17) The plays seem to hinge around incredibly carefully thought-out structural pivots, which I arrive at as thankfully and as unexpectedly as an explorer parting the pampas grass which is head-high and seeing a valley full of sunlight and maidens. No compass. Nothing. (1974, p. 17) 19. COOKING: SIMMERING: Lawrence Durrell (1977), Irvin Faust (1978), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Ryan), Ross Macdonald (1977), Leo Rosten (1964), Philip Roth (1975), E. B. White (1969). STEWING: Lawrence Durrell (1977), Beverly Farmer (1986), James Jones (1964), Edmund White (1988).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 147

BACKBURNER, IN THE POT: Leigh Brackett (1978), Sara Dowse (1986), Paul Gallico (1977), James Jones (1964), Madeleine L’Engle (1974). BOILING AWAY, ON THE BOIL, OFF THE BOIL, BOIL DOWN: Kingsley Amis (1975), Alice Childress (1987), Herbert Gold (1976), Peter Levi (1979), Philip Levine (1988), Gabrielle Lord (1986), Olga Masters (1986), Katherine Anne Porter (1977), Jessamyn West (1976), Paul Zimmer (1989). BREWING, FERMENTING: Lucy Boston (1974), Michael Harper (1973), John Hawkes (1972), Vladimir Nabokov (1980), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). PERCOLATING: Lois Simmie (1988). MARINATING: Tom Robbins (1987). YEASTING: R. A. Lafferty (1978), William Manchester (1973), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). BROILING: John Nichols (1988). DISTILLING: Margaret Atwood (1988), Donald Barthelme (1981), Tina Howe (1987), John Lehmann (1966), Emily Mann (1987), Susan Yankowitz (1987). BAKING, IN THE OVEN: Jim Harrison (1988), Anaïs Nin (1970), Mordecai Richler (1973). JELLING: Alexander Baird (1966), Leigh Brackett (1978), Lawrence Durrell (1977), Eugene Ionesco (1971), Judith Minty (1977), Alice Munro (1973), John Nichols (1988), Gwen Pharis Ringwood (1978), Robert Penn Warren (1966). COOKING PROCESS: Blanche d’Alpuget (1986), Ivan Doig (1987), Paul Gallico (1977), Gabriel García Márquez (1973), William Gass (1983), William Matthews (1977), Rohinton Mistry (1989), Toni Morrison (1984), Carl Reiner (1976), Tom Robbins (1987), Armonía Somers (1985), Eudora Welty (1982,1985 Bunting), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). 20. ENGENDER, BREED, FERTILIZE, SEMEN, SPAWN, SPERM: Leonard Clark (1975), Abelardo Delgado (1980), Douglas Dunn (1981), E. M. Forster (1977), Athol Fugard (1989), Seamus Heaney (1981), Bryan MacMahon (1974), Harold Pinter (1977), Estela Portillo (1980), Philip Roth (1975), John Steinbeck (1977), John Updike (1977), Michael Waters (1989). 21. CONCEPTION, GERMINATION: Edward Albee (1977), Taner Baybars (1966), Thomas Blackburn (1966), Brigid Brophy (1976), Austin Clarke (1973), Abelardo Delgado (1980), J. P. Donleavy (1975), Cyprian Ekwensi (1972), William Faulkner (1966), E. M. Forster (1977), John Fowles (1976), Robert Graves (1977), Thom Gunn (1981), Epeli Hau’ofa (1989), Geoffrey Hill (1981), James A. Michener (1978), Arthur Miller (1966), N. Scott Momaday (1989), Gabriel Okara (1974), Belva Plain (1989), Estela Portillo (1980), Jon Silkin (1975), Armonía Somers (1985), Elizabeth Spencer (1989), David Storey (1973), Robert Penn Warren (1973, 1977, 1983), Sheila Watson (1984), John A. Williams (1973), Susan Yankowitz (1987), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984, 1988). 22. GESTATION, INCUBATION, PREGNANCY, BROODING: Edward Albee (1977), Poul Anderson (1978), John Arden (1966), Miguel Angel Asturias (1973), Louis Auchincloss (1989), Taner Baybars (1966), Jean Bedford (1986), Thomas Blackburn (1966), Rosellen Brown (1983), Blaise Cendrars

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

148 Notes

23.

24.

25. 26.

27.

(1977), J. P. Clark (1972), Leonard Clark (1975), Robert Coover (1982), Abelardo Delgado (1980), Margaret Drabble (1988 London)[implied], Irvin Faust (1978), Griselda Gambaro (1985), Kaye Gibbons (1993), Thom Gunn (1981), Jim Harrison (1988), Seamus Heaney (1981), Geoffrey Hill (1981), Gary Hyland (1988), Christopher Isherwood (1977 Bailey), Galway Kinnell (1974), Peter Matthiessen (1989), Ruth Pitter (1966), Estela Portillo (1980) [implied], Vernon Scannell (1975), Gary Snyder (1977), Theodore Weiss (1985), Eudora Welty (1985 Millsaps), E. B. White (1969), Angus Wilson (1977), Ray Young Bear (1987), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). EMBRYOS AND FETUSES: E. L. Doctorow (1984), Lawrence Durrell (1973), James Reaney (1978), Gabrielle Roy (1973), Eudora Welty (1985 Royals and Little), Susan Yankowitz (1987). GIVING BIRTH: Martin Amis (1985), Miguel Angel Asturias (1973), Louis Auchincloss (1989), Thomas Blackburn (1966), Algis Budrys (1980), Julieta Campos (1985), Sandra Cisneros (1985), Angela de Hoyos (1985), Abelardo Delgado (1980), Peter DeVries (1981), Ariel Dorfman (1989), Edward Dorn (1980 Fredman), Richard Eberhart (1977, 1979 Donoghue, 1979 Cannito, 1979 Broughton), William Faulkner (1968 Bouvard, 1968 Nagano IV), Timothy Findley (1973 Gibson, 1973 Cameron), Ruth Flippen (1975), Griselda Gambaro (1985), Gabriel García Márquez (1973), William Gass (1983 LeClair), Joseph Heller (1984), James Herbert (1985), Larry L. King (1972), Carolyn Kizer (1987), Audre Lorde (1981), Norman Mailer (1977), Peter Matthiessen (1989), Arthur Miller (1966), Alice Munro (1973), Belva Plain (1989), Gabrielle Roy (1973), John Schultz (1977), Gary Snyder (1979), Armonía Somers (1985), Susan Sontag (1984), Gerald Stern (1982), Richard G. Stern (1966), James Tate (1984), William Trevor (1989), Luisa Valenzuela (1985), Jessamyn West (1976), John Hall Wheelock (1976), Ray Young Bear (1987), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). LAYING AND HATCHING EGGS: Richard Hughes (1974), Roger Kahn (1978), Peter Matthiessen (1989), William Carlos Williams (1976). FAILED GESTATIONS AND BIRTHS: Taner Baybars (1966) also mentions “miscarriage”; Ursula Le Guin (1987), Leslie Marmon Silko (1993), and Gerald Stern (1982), “stillbirth”; Lawrence Durrell (1973), Alice Munro (1973) and Glenway Wescott (1973), “abortions.” Some metaphors do both. Thomas Blackburn focuses on the “necessary” “gestation.” I certainly compose aloud, sort of boo and bah it over to myself … I get an idea, a sort of germ comes … But it may take me weeks and weeks of brooding … and then suddenly the poem will arrive; but it takes a long period of gestation; then once that birthpoint has been reached the thing is written quickly; but then comes the working over and that’s a long process. (1966, p. 29) X. J. Kennedy indicates, …poems tend to enter the world by their most astonishing parts. Often, a poet bothers to finish a poem only for the sake of containing those first-born, unlabored lines. In order to deliver the rest of the poem, the

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 149

150 Notes

Abelardo Delgado reveals the lively texts he has conceived, texts gestating and emerging with their essential nature only partly known. I literally give birth to the ideas which wiggle in me wanting to come out … when an idea is ready to [come] out … it is almost kicking out of me; thus it has already its gender. We can ovulate as well in English or in Spanish, or mixed … you can say the genes are there and we at times do not know what we will be creating until it is in front of us. It is like a pregnant woman who knows she has a baby en la panza [in her belly] but does not know if the baby will be a boy or girl and prieto or guero [dark or fair]. (1980, pp. 99–100, translated in original) 28. PREPARING GROUND, SEEDS, PLANTING, GERMINATION, FIRST SHOOTS, GARDENING: V.C. Andrews (1985), Louis Auchincloss (1989), Thomas Blackburn (1966), Brigid Brophy (1976), Raymond Carver (1987 O’Connell), Sandra Cisneros (1985), Robert Coover (1982), Robertson Davies (1989), Ivan Doig (1987), J. P. Donleavy (1975), John Dos Passos (1977), Margaret Drabble (1988 London), John Fowles (1989), Griselda Gambaro (1985), Alan Garner (1974), Marita Golden (1993), Edward Gorey (1977), Robert Graves (1977), John Hawkes (1972), Joseph Heller (1980), Geoffrey Hill (1981), Tama Janowitz (1988), Jamaica Kincaid (1993), Barbara Kingsolver (1993), Ursula Le Guin (1987), Audre Lorde (1983), Helen MacInnes (1977), Archibald MacLeish (1974), Frederick Manfred (1974), James McConkey (1981), James A. Michener (1978), N. Scott Momaday (1989), Linda Pastan (1989), Belva Plain (1989), Katherine Anne Porter (1977), Jon Silkin (1975), Elizabeth Spencer (1989), Frank Stanford (1977), Wallace Stegner (1985), David Storey (1973), William Styron (1978), Robert Penn Warren (1973, 1977, 1983), Eudora Welty (1985 Haller, 1985 Royals and Little), Glenway Wescott (1973), Barbara Williams (1983), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). 29. TEXTS AS PLANTS: Other garden or plant metaphors imply demands for attention and nurturance, such as those of Jessica Anderson (1986), Donald Barthelme (1988), Peter S. Beagle (1976), Jean Bedford (1986), John Brunner (1978), Ernest Buckler (1973), Raymond Carver (1988 Schumacher), Alice Childress (1987), Sandra Cisneros (1985), Robert Coover (1973), E. L. Doctorow (1984), Edward Dorn (1980 Okada), Margaret Drabble (1982), Lawrence Durrell (1973), Stanley Elkin (1975), Penelope Farmer (1976), Tess Gallagher (1987), William Goyen (1980), John Hollander (1983), Eugene Ionesco (1971), David Jones (1966), William Kennedy (1987), James Liddy (1966), Michael McDowell (1985), Jim Sagel (1985), Margery Sharp (1964), David Storey (1973), William Styron (1978), James Tate (1984), William Trevor (1989), Tino Villanueva (1985), Eudora Welty (1982, 1985 Royals), Glenway Wescott (1973), Jessamyn West (1976), Charles Wright (1988 Ellis), James Wright (1988), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

poet may have to bear down on it. “Consumer’s Report” … was a breech-birth. The first thing to protrude was its bottom stanza. Then I had to urge forth the rest of it…. The final stanza arrived one morning when I was lying in bed. (1977, pp. 165–6)

30. MOLD AND CLAY: Wallace Stegner (1976) speaks of his manuscript when it is “still malleable.” Alice Munro (1973) prefers material that she can “pull.” John Gardner (1979) keeps “pushing” at his text. Other writers who work with clay: Arnold Adoff (1974), Marvin Bell (1985), Rita Dove (1989), Stanley Kunitz (1983). Arnold Adoff says that he has learned to work his material “over and over like … a piece of clay” (1974). Ursula Le Guin (1987 O’Connell) makes novels like “pottery pots.” 31. (RE)SHAPE: Tom Paulin says, “I spent a long, agonizing time revising and shaping the volume, trying to make it cohere” (1981, p. 172). But some find limitations to the process: Audre Lorde indicates that her poetry is not infinitely malleable, not like “Play-Doh. You can’t take a poem and keep reforming it” (1981, p. 720). Other writers who (re)shape when revising: Thea Astley (1986), Lawrence Durrell (1973), Athol Fugard (1989), Joan Givner (1988), John Hawkes (1981), Edward Hirsch (1989), Corinne Jacker (1987), William Kennedy (1987), Philip Levine (1988), John Updike (1977), Robert Penn Warren (1977), and Eudora Welty (1978, 1982, 1985 van Noppen, 1985 Haller) “shape.” Truman Capote (1984), Clarence Major (1985) and Bruce Bennett (1989) “reshape.” Christopher Okigbo (1972) and Charles Wright (1988 Ellis) “mold,” and Leo Rosten (1964) “reshapes” and “remolds.” 32. Using related images, Jerome Weidman says, “… it suddenly occurred to me that a pattern was beginning to emerge. I thought that if I would just pat it a little, like a meatball, I’d have something, be something” (1964, p. 630). And as we saw earlier, Marguerite Yourcenar likens the manipulation of constant early revision to kneading bread dough: “you begin with something shapeless, which sticks to your fingers, a kind of paste. Gradually that paste becomes more and more firm. Then there comes the point when it turns rubbery” (1984, p. 185). Note that both Weidman and Youcenar are flagging changes in working practices based on the nature of the material. 33. (RE)CASTING: Jerome Mazzaro (1977) mentions that he had to “recast” an opening; James Dickey (1970), James A. Michener (1978), and Eudora Welty (1984) recast parts or whole texts. 34. SCULPT, CARVE, CHISEL, CHIP: Related images are used by Raymond Carver (1988 Stull), Ivan Doig (1987), Barry Hannah (1987), William Kennedy (1987), Linda Pastan (1983, 1989), and W. R. Rodgers (1966). William Kennedy (1987) “sculpts.” 35. Maxine Kumin indicates: “A poem is not a watercolor, you don’t just get one shot at it. We all know that a watercolor either works or not in the first twenty minutes or you tear it up and start another one. But a poem does not …” (1983, p. 111). 36. (RE)PAINT, (RE)TOUCH, TOUCH UP: Helen MacInnes (1964) also makes an analogy to painting: she “retouches” as she goes along. Others include J. P. Clark (1972), William Faulkner (1968 Claxton), Jack Ludwig (1973), Elizabeth Spencer (1982), William Trevor (1989), Ray Young Bear (1987). 37. A somewhat more physical image is suggested by Megan Terry: “Also, I’ve been a painter, sculptor and theater designer; laying down ideas, then ripping them up or moving them around was part of my method of work, so I didn’t get lost in the linear” (1987, p. 386). 38. SEWING AND TAILORING: Stanley Ellin mentions that “patchworking” bothered him (1978); Corinne Jacker complains that she cannot pull out

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 151

39.

40. 41.

42.

43.

44. 45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

just one thread,” but has to return to the beginning (1987); Rosario Ferre “combines threads” and “sews a quilt” (1993). Other tailors include Alice Childress (1987), Philip Dunne (1986), Philip Levine (1988), and Audre Lorde (1983). WEAVING, (INTERWEAVING): Weavers also attempt to bring and fit together disparate elements to create a serviceable and attractive whole. Authors using such figures include Byrna Barclay (1988), John Barth (1973), Robert Creeley (1973 MacAdams), Thomas Fleming (1989), Kaye Gibbons (1993), Joan Givner (1988), Christopher Isherwood (1981), Diane Johnson (1983), William Kennedy (1987), David Lodge (1985), Frederick Manfred (1974), Jerome Mazzaro (1977), Anne McCaffrey (1978), Marguerite Young (1984). KNOTS: Donald Hall also describes himself struggling with “knots” (1983). TIGHTEN (UP): Other tighteners include Beverley Farmer (1986), Shirley Kaufman (1977), Maxine Kumin (1983), Barry Lopez (1987), Larry McMurtry (1980), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). Robert Wallace tells of a poem that he did not try to “tighten” with revision (1977). MAKE FIT, FIT TOGETHER: Ellen Douglas (1983), William Faulkner (1977) [bricks], William Gass (1983 LeClair) [also not], Kate Grenville (1986), Richard Hoyt (1987), Ursula Le Guin (1987 McCaffrey), Barry Lopez (1987), Elena Poniatowska (1994). TINKER: Raymond Carver (1987 O’Connell), Richard Eberhart (1977), Maxine Kumin (1983), James Laughlin (1989), Robert Lowell (1968), Jay McInerney (1988), Murray Morgan (1987), Tim O’Brien (1983), Marilynne Robinson (1987), Salman Rushdie (1985), Dennis Schmitz (1977), Mona Simpson (1988), Richard Wilbur (1974), Charles Wright (1988 Ellis). STRAIGHTEN: Other straighteners: Sue Alexander (1979), W. R. Burnett (1986), Joan Givner (1988). PRUNE: Other pruners include Jessica Anderson (1986), Jean Bedford (1986), Raymond Carver (1988 Schumacher), Penelope Farmer (1976), Tess Gallagher (1987), Tino Villanueva (1985), Eudora Welty (1982), and James Wright (1988 Stitt). SHARPEN OR HONE: Others who “sharpen” their texts during revision include Doris Betts (1972), Sara Dowse (1986), Shirley Kaufman (1977), Barry Lopez (1987), Arthur Miller (1967), James Tate (1977), and Eudora Welty (1982, 1985 van Noppen). PARE, PEEL AWAY: Jessica Anderson (1986), Liliane Atlan (1987), Maria Campbell (1988), Raymond Carver (1987 McCaffrey, 1988 Stull), John Gardner (1974), Donald Hall (1973), Russell Hoban (1987), Hugh MacLennan (1973), Jerome Mazzaro (1977), Howard Moss (1974), Katha Pollitt (1989), and Chaim Potok (1980). CHOP: Conrad Aiken (1977), Jean Bedford (1986), Bret Easton Ellis (1988), Stanley Elkin (1983), Kate Grenville (1986), B. S. Johnson (1981), and Alice Munro (1973). CHEW AT: William Gass (1983 LeClair), Martin Myers (1973). “DIDDLE AWAY” AT: Allen Ginsberg (1977). “JIGGLE”: Ursula Le Guin (1987 McCaffery). “NIGGLE”: Lawrence Durrell (1977). “PICK” AT: Christopher Isherwood (1977 Scobie).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

152 Notes

“WORRY”: Jean Fritz (1974). “WHACK” AT: Eudora Welty (1985 Haller). “FIDDLE” (AROUND) WITH: Jessica Anderson (1986), Fred Chappell (1973), Raymond Federman (1983), William Gass (1983 LeClair), James Baker Hall (1977), Jonathan Holden (1989), Maxine Kumin (1977), James Laughlin (1989), Ursula Le Guin (1987 McCaffery), Tom Mallin (1981), Judith Minty (1977), Alan Sillitoe (1981), Joan Swift (1977). “FOOL (AROUND)” WITH: Erskine Caldwell (1964), William Gass (1983 LeClair), Tina Howe (1987), Elizabeth Spencer (1982). “FUSS” WITH: Raymond Carver (1988 Schumacher), Anne Sexton (1974) “MESS” (AROUND) WITH: Raymond Carver (1987 McCaffrey), Helen Garner (1986), Barry Hannah (1987), Leslie Marmon Silko (1993), Elizabeth Spencer (1982), Tom Stoppard (1988), Richard Wilbur (1974, 1984). “MONKEY” (AROUND) WITH: John Graves (1980), Leo Rosten (1964). “MUCK” (AROUND) (ABOUT) WITH: Blanche d’Alpuget (1986), Beverley Farmer (1986). “PLAY” (AROUND) WITH: Raymond Carver (1987 McCaffrey), Anne Commire (1987), Ralph Ellison (1974), William Golding (1970), Barry Hannah (1987), Lorrie Moore (1988), Anne Sexton (1974). “TOY” WITH: Margaret Drabble (1979/80), Gary Hyland (1988), José Montoya (1985), Alan Ryan (1985), William Stafford (1987), Sherley Anne Williams (1993). “KNOCK (OUT) INTO SHAPE) (ON THE HEAD)”: Helen Garner (1986), James A. Michener (1978), Mark Smith (1983). 50. POLISH: Sue Alexander (1979), Leigh Brackett (1978), Truman Capote (1985), Raymond Carver (1987 McCaffery), Veronica Cunningham (1985), Blanche d’Alpuget (1986), Alberto Delgado (1980), Brianda Domecq (1994), Cyprian Ekwensi (1972), T. S. Eliot (1977), Pamela Frankau (1964), Griselda Gambaro (1985), Epeli Hau’ofa (1989), Patricia Highsmith (1977), Elmer Kelton (1980), Tom Lea (1980), Audre Lorde (1981), Charles Madge (1966), Peter Matthiessen (1989), Joe Orton (1971), Linda Pastan (1977, 1989), Barbara Leonie Picard (1976), Elena Poniatowska (1994), Allan Scott (1986), Richard Shelton (1977), Isaac Bashevis Singer (1978, 1980), William Styron (1978), Luisa Valenzuela (1985), Eudora Welty (1985 Keith). Several writers, such as William Stafford (1985), indicated that they did not polish their texts: Doris Lessing (1988) and Maxine Kumin (1983) “roughened” theirs instead.

5

Metaphorics of Discursive Sociality

1. TEXTS BEING OR COMING ALIVE, TAKING ON LIFE OF THEIR OWN: Martin Amis (1985), Max Apple (1987), Pat Barker (1993), James M. Cain (1986), Robert Creeley (1973 Tomlinson), Robertson Davies (1989), Ellen Douglas (1983), Lawrence Durrell (1973, 1977), Michael Harper (1973), Wilson Harris (1981), Elmer Kelton (1980), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Fortunato, 1983), Audre Lorde (1981), Norman Mailer (1977), W.S. Merwin (1984), Harry Mark Petrakis (1977), Marilynne Robinson (1987), Gary Snyder

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 153

(1979), Wallace Stegner (1985), Eudora Welty (1985 Price, 1985 Royals, 1985 Haller), Charles Wright (1988 Oberlin), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). 2. DEAD, DYING TEXTS: It should not be surprising to find dead and dying texts where there are living ones: Leigh Brackett says “if I tried to think ahead and outline I simply killed the story” (1978, p. 372). Denise Levertov believes that writing a poem from intelligence without instinct will produce “a dead baby” (1963), and Stanley Ellin complained once that the whole text “had to be dismembered and done over” (1978, p. 7). Archibald MacLeish, “like a homicide expert in a movie,” can tell when his text has “stiffened” (1974). Michael Cook says of his work just completed: “It’s dead. Finished. Done with” (1978, p. 214). Martin Amis talks about a book “gone dead” on him (1985). Others: Pat Barker (1993), Taner Baybars (1966), Lorna Dee Cervantes (1985), Rita Dove (1989), Lawrence Durrell (1973), Howard Engel (1983), John Fowles (1982), William Gass (1983 LeClair p. 152), William Golding (1985), Kate Grenville (1986), Elizabeth Hardwick (1989), Hamish Henderson (1966), Carolyn Kizer (1987), Tom Lea (1980), Ursula Le Guin (1987 O’Connell), David Morrell (1985), Alice Munro (1973), Iris Murdoch (1985), Tom Paulin (1981), Anne Perry (1983), Carl Frederik Prytz (1966), Vernon Scannell (1975), Susan Sontag (1984), Gerald Stern (1982), Eudora Welty (1978), Glenway Wescott (1973), James Wright (1988 Stitt). 3. TEXTS THAT PRESENT SELVES, SPEAK, MAKE SUGGESTIONS, MAKE RULES, DICTATE, INSIST, MAKE DEMANDS ON THEIR AUTHORS: Martin Amis (1985), Ronald Bottrall (1966), Mel Brooks (1976), Algis Budrys (1980), Ramsey Campbell (1985), Raymond Carver (1987 O’Connell, 1987 McCaffrey, 1988 Schumacher), Robert Coover (1982), Robertson Davies (1989), James Dickey (1970), E. L. Doctorow (1977, 1984), Edward Dorn (1980 Bertholf), Stephen Dunn (1989), Lauris Edmond (1986), Russell Edson (1977), Louise Erdrich (1987), William Faulkner (1968 Nagano IV), Stuart Friebert (1977), Athol Fugard (1989), Tess Gallagher (1987), Griselda Gambaro (1985, 1987), Alan Garner (1974), Robert Graves (1977), Wilson Harris (1981), Shelby Hearon (1980), Geoffrey Hill (1981), Russell Hoban (1985, 1987), Linda Hogan (1987), Jonathan Holden (1989), John Hopkins (1971), Gary Hyland (1988), Eugene Ionesco (1971), Kazuo Ishiguro (1989), P. D. James (1983), B. S. Johnson (1981), Charles Johnson (1987), William Kennedy (1987), X. J. Kennedy (1977), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Ryan), Ursula K. Le Guin (1978 Walker, 1987), James Leigh (1976), Doris Lessing (1988), Audre Lorde (1981), Ross Macdonald (1983), Charles Madge (1966), Frederick Manfred (1985), William Matthews (1972), Jerome Mazzaro (1977), Anne McCaffrey (1978), Jean Merrill (1974), Arthur Miller (1967), W. O. Mitchell (1973), Lisel Mueller (1989), John Nichols (1988), Linda Pastan (1983), Harry Mark Petrakis (1977), Jayne Anne Phillips (1988), Ruth Pitter (1966), John Press (1966), Craig Raine (1981), Kenneth Rexroth (1972), Adrienne Rich (1971), W. R. Rodgers (1966), Philip Roth (1975), Muriel Rukeyser (1974), Vernon Scannell (1966), Philip Schultz (1989), Lois Simmie (1988), Elizabeth George Speare (1974), Bernard Spencer (1966), William Stafford (1972, 1987), Tom Stoppard (1974, 1988), Lucien Stryk (1973), William Styron (1978), Rosemary Sutcliff (1974), Charles Tomlinson (1975), Alice Walker (1973), Robert Wallace (1977), Robert Penn Warren

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

154 Notes

(1978), Michael Waters (1989), Eudora Welty (1982, 1985 van Noppen, 1985 Maclay, 1985 Haller), Richard Wilbur (1977 High), Jack Williamson (1978), James Wright (1984), Susan Yankowitz (1987). 4. TEXTS THAT DETERMINE, DEFINE, SHAPE, BUILD, FINISH THEMSELVES— WRITE THEMSELVES: Nelson Algren (1977), A. R. Ammons (1983), Michael Baldwin (1966), Pinckney Benedict (1988), Alfred Bester (1978), Leigh Brackett (1978), W. R. Burnett (1986), Raymond Carver (1987 McCaffrey), Laura Chester (1977), Hilary Corke (1966), James Dickey (1970, 1975), E. L. Doctorow (1977, 1984), Ivan Doig (1987), Louise Erdrich (1987), Dennis Etchison (1985), William Faulkner (1968 Virginia, 1968 Smith), Thomas Fleming (1989), Gabriel García Márquez (1973), William Gass (1983 Debate), Kaye Gibbons (1993), William Golding (1985), Wilson Harris (1981), Geoffrey Hill (1981), Edward Hoagland (1975), Russell Hoban (1985, 1987), Jonathan Holden (1989), Eugene Ionesco (1971), James Jones (1964), Harper Lee (1964), Ursula K. Le Guin (1978 Gilbert, 1987), Frederick Manfred (1974), Emily Mann (1987), Anne McCaffrey (1978), Larry McMurtry (1980), Sandra McPherson (1977), James A. Michener (1978), Arthur Miller (1967), Howard Moss (1974), Paul Muldoon (1981), Norman Nicholson (1966), Joyce Carol Oates (1978), Linda Pastan (1977), Harry Mark Petrakis (1977), Ann Petry (1973), Stanley Plumly (1989), Chaim Potok (1980), Reynolds Price (1972), C. H. O. Scaife (1966), Vernon Scannell (1966), James Schmitz (1978), Charles Simic (1977), Stevie Smith (1966), Armonía Somers (1985), Elizabeth Spencer (1982, 1989), William Stafford (1984), Mary Stewart (1964), Ruth Stone (1975), Tom Stoppard (1988), David Storey (1973), John Updike (1977), Gore Vidal (1974), David Wagoner (1987), Robert Wallace (1977), Robert Penn Warren (1983), Mary Hays Weik (1974), Eudora Welty (1977, 1982, 1985 Bunting), Richard Wilbur (1970, 1977 High, 1977 Turner, 1984), Barbara Willard (1976), Nancy Willard (1989), Charles Wright (1988 Santos). 5. TEXTS WANTING THINGS AND REALIZING THEMSELVES: A. R. Ammons (1983), Abelardo Delgado (1980), James Dickey (1970), Alan Dugan (1973), William Faulkner (1968 Nagano IV), Pam Gems (1987), Russell Hoban (1985, 1987), Barbara Kingsolver (1993), Frederick Manfred (1974), Judith Minty (1977), Lorrie Moore (1988), Iris Murdoch (1982), Linda Pastan (1989), Ruth Pitter (1966), Neil Simon (1976), Gary Snyder (1978), Wallace Stegner (1976, 1985), James Tate (1977), Richard Wilbur (1970, 1984). 6. TEXTS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT, TAKE OVER, GO THEIR OWN WAY, GET OUT OF CONTROL: Chinua Achebe (1989), Ray Amorsi (1977), V. C. Andrews (1985), Jean M. Auel (1987), Ann Beattie (1987), Ramsey Campbell (1985), Raymond Carver (1987 O’Connell, 1987 McCaffrey), Sandra Cisneros (1985), Leonard Clark (1975), Anne Commire (1987), James Dickey (1979), Lawrence Durrell (1977), Lauris Edmond (1986), Ralph Ellison (1984), Louise Erdrich (1987), William Faulkner (1968 Nagano IV), Gabriel García Márquez (1973), William Goyen (1980), Michael Harper (1973), Russell Hoban (1985, 1987), Eugene Ionesco (1967), Madeline L’Engle (1974 Wintle), Norman Mailer (1967), Thomas McGuane (1987), James A. Michener (1978), Toni Morrison (1984), John Nichols (1988), Chaim Potok (1980), Sue Roe (1979), Leo Rosten (1964), Philip Roth (1975), Salman Rushdie (1985), Ron Silliman (1987), Elizabeth Spencer

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 155

(1982), Wallace Stegner (1985), Andrew Suknaski (1988), Emma Tennant (1979), Eudora Welty (1982, 1985 Jones), Dara Wier (1983), Charles Wright (1988 Santos). 7. TEXTS THAT CHOOSE, FORCE THEMSELVES ON, OR TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR AUTHORS: Martin Amis (1985), Liliane Atlan (1987), Byrna Barclay (1988), Philip Booth (1983), Barbara Brinson-Pineda (1985), Truman Capote (1985), Raymond Carver (1987 O’Connell, 1987 McCaffrey, 1988 Schumacher), Fred Chappell (1972), Alice Childress (1987), Leonard Clark (1975), Anne Commire (1987), Robertson Davies (1989), Fielding Dawson (1974), James Dickey (1979), Rita Dove (1989), Douglas Dunn (1981), Lawrence Durrell (1977), Richard Eberhart (1978, 1979 Cannito, 1979 American), Ralph Ellison (1974), Louise Erdrich (1987), William Faulkner (1968 Nagano IV), Timothy Findley (1984), Tess Gallagher (1987), John Gardner (1979), Donald Hall (1973), Joseph Heller (1984), Russell Hoban (1985, 1987), Linda Hogan (1987), Ursula Le Guin (1987), Robert Lowell (1968), Ross MacDonald (1983), Charles Madge (1966), Jill McCorkle (1993), Rod McKuen (1989), José Montoya (1985), Edwin Morgan (1976), Gloria Naylor (1993), John Nichols (1988), Grace Paley (1993), Linda Pastan (1989), Sue Roe (1979), Leslie Marmon Silko (1993), Armonía Somers (1985), Elizabeth Spencer (1989), Gerald Stern (1982), Emma Tennant (1979, 1985), Charles Tomlinson (1975), Marta Traba (1985), Alice Walker (1973), Robert Penn Warren (1977, 1983), Eudora Welty (1985 Royals), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). 8. BIRDS: Later in the writing process, Alfred Coppel suggests that his texts are hawks—difficult to get “pinioned” on certain critical points (1976, p. 80). And Judith Minty, as she begins, is “never certain what place the poem will fly off to” (1977, p. 244). Linda Pastan said that her poem “grew out of a strong mood … It was certainly helped on its flight, however, by a specific mourning dove outside the window” (1977, p. 250). Eudora Welty grants that the final thing may “fly in through the window,” but only after brooding (1985 Millsaps). 9. ANIMALS: Writers discussing composing also mention owning, capturing, taming, controlling—a pterodactyl (Donald Hall, 1974), game (Louis Simpson, 1977), an animal or “creature” (James Dickey, 1979; Russell Hoban, 1987; Norman Mailer, 1977), a horse (Ursula K. Le Guin, 1987; Rod McKuen, 1989), a cat (Sandra Cisneros, 1985), an “organism” (Charles Simic, 1977), angleworms (Frederick Manfred 1985), and a “little agonized thing” (Robert Creeley, 1973 Ginsberg). Frederick Manfred creates “a pheasant in flight” (1974). Stanley Kunitz discusses texts specifically as creatures without always labeling them “living things” (1983), but referring to attributes such as their “skin” (1974 Boyers), “antennae” (1983), and “breathing” (1974 Fortunato), as does Charles Wright when he speaks of the “skin structure” of his poem (1988 Ellis), when Erskine Caldwell (1988), Roald Dahl (1974), Blanche d’Alpuget (1986), James Dickey (1979), Frederick Manfred (1974), Emily Mann (1987), and Chaim Potok (1980) discuss “bones,” “skeletons,” and “skeletal parts,” such as the “spine of the play,” when Rochelle Owens (1987) talks about “living tissue,” when Frederick Manfred (1974) and Tom Stoppard (1988) talk about “a nervous system,” “blood,” “guts,” and “pulling out entrails.” And it certainly seems suspiciously

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

156 Notes

10.

11.

12.

13.

animal-like when some texts “move”—Carl Dennis (1989), John Gardner (1981 Burns), Hamish Henderson (1966), Stanley Kunitz (1974 Fortunato)— when Larry McMurtry’s books “squirm out from under” their titles (1980), and when ideas “take to their heels” as they “flee” from Eugene Ionesco (1967) and Belva Plain (1989). Elizabeth Spencer warns that ideas, once formed, “may eat you up,” and should be kept “young and playful as long as possible” (1989, pp. 200–1). HUNT: Others who “hunt” throughout the writing process include Brian Aldiss (1978), Lawrence Durrell (1973), Stanley Elkin (1982), John Gardner (1979), Janet Lewis (1976), Thomas McGuane (1987), John Rechy (1973), Philip Schultz (1989), David Wagoner (1987), Robert Penn Warren (1966). Philip Schultz says, “It just occurred to me that it is almost sexual. It’s a kind of pursuit, with the smell of the hunt” (1989, p. 188). PURSUE, CHASE, CAPTURE, CATCH: Others who attempt to “pursue” or “chase” their texts, and “catch” or “capture” them: Robert Coover (1982), Rex Deverell (1988), E. L. Doctorow (1983), Richard Eberhart (1978), Robert Frost (1966), Geoffrey Hill (1981), Gary Hyland (1988), Chukwuemeka Ike (1976), Thomas Kinsella (1981), Philip Levine (1988), Thomas McGuane (1987), Rod McKuen (1989), Gabrielle Roy (1973), Jean Valentine (1983), Sheila Watson (1984), Al Young (1973), Marguerite Young (1984). Pirandello’s play is only one of many books that deploy characters that appear to be out of control and independent. The “author” in Raymond Queneau’s The Flight of Icarus (1993) escapes from the book and sets up an independent life in Paris. In John Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman (1969), a figure of the author appears as a character in the book. One anecdote has Pirandello performing “independent characters” as he wrote in his study in the afternoons: On one such afternoon, builders working on a temporarily erected platform next door looked in through the window to see a man sitting at his desk rolling his eyes and gesticulating wildly, all the while talking to himself. Thinking him insane, or possibly possessed by the devil, they gathered around and watched until, the period of writing over, an embarrassed Pirandello became aware for the first time of the audience so close to hand. (Caesar, 1998, pp. 1–2)

14. CHARACTERS COME TO WRITERS, ARE FOUND, OR CREATE THEMSELVES: Erskine Caldwell (1988), Robertson Davies (1978), Ralph Ellison (1974, 1977), Timothy Findley (1973 Gibson, 1973 Cameron), Margaret Laurence (1973 Gibson, 1973 Cameron), Larry McMurtry (1980), Joyce Carol Oates (1974), Reynolds Price (1972), Salman Rushdie (1985), Ntozake Shange (1983). 15. CHARACTERS BECOME ALIVE, AUTONOMOUS, INDEPENDENT DURING THE PROCESS OF WRITING: Edward Anhalt (1972), Miguel Angel Asturias (1973), Louis Auchincloss (1989), Byrna Barclay (1988), Pat Barker (1993), Judy Blume (1979), Kay Boyle (1976), Alice Childress (1987), Alfred Coppel (1976), John Dos Passos (1973), Ralph Ellison (1974), Timothy Findley (1973 Cameron), Pamela Frankau (1964), John Gardner (1981), Epeli Hau’ofa (1989), William Inge (1971), Frances Parkinson Keyes (1957),

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 157

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Ursula K. Le Guin (1987), Madeleine L’Engle (1974 Hopkins), David Madden (1985), Tom Mallin (1981), John Mortimer (1989), Anne Perry (1983), Harry Mark Petrakis (1977), Ann Petry (1973), Katherine Anne Porter (1977), Barbara Rinkoff (1974), Gabrielle Roy (1973), Salman Rushdie (1985), William Sansom (1974), Ouida Sebestyen (1993), Leslie Marmon Silko (1993), Elizabeth George Speare (1974), Rosemary Sutcliff (1976), William Trevor (1989), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). CHARACTERS MAY INITIATE THE NARRATIVE BY THEIR ARRIVAL: Sue Alexander (1979), Julia Cunningham (1979), Timothy Findley (1973 Gibson, 1973 Cameron), Larry McMurtry (1980), Joyce Carol Oates (1974), Elizabeth George Speare (1974), Eudora Welty (1988), Barbara Wersba (1979), Rita Williams-Garcia (1993). CHARACTERS DO THINGS THEIR AUTHORS DO NOT EXPECT: Toni Cade Bambara (1983), Judy Blume (1979), Rosellen Brown (1983), Erskine Caldwell (1988), Cyprian Ekwensi (1972), Ralph Ellison (1977), John Fowles (1976), William Price Fox (1977), John Gardner (1981), A. B. Guthrie, Jr. (1987), Ursula K. Le Guin (1987), Madeleine L’Engle (1974 Hopkins), Doris Lessing (1974), Bernard Malamud (1975), Tom Mallin (1981), Larry McMurtry (1980), Margaret Millar (1983), Grace Paley (1993), Anne Perry (1983), Ann Petry (1973), Harold Pinter (1977), Salman Rushdie (1985), Ouida Sebestyen (1993), Leslie Marmon Silko (1993), Jessamyn West (1976). CHARACTERS SUGGEST OR CHOOSE WHAT THEY WILL DO OR SAY: Milton Acorn (1984), Rudolfo Anaya (1980), Miguel Angel Asturias (1973), Byrna Barclay (1988), Pat Barker (1993), Saul Bellow (1972 Kulshrestha), Mel Brooks (1976), Rosellen Brown (1983), Alfred Coppel (1976), Edward Dorn (1980 Okada), Margaret Drabble (1982), Ralph Ellison (1974), Pamela Frankau (1964), Ernest J. Gaines (1976), Paul Gallico (1977), John Gardner (1979), Kaye Gibbons (1993), James Baker Hall (1977), William Inge (1971), James Jones (1964), Frances Parkinson Keyes (1957), Ursula K. Le Guin (1987), James Leigh (1976), Janet Lewis (1976), Cynthia Macdonald (1977), Margaret MacPherson (1976), Tom Mallin (1981), Joyce Carol Oates (1974, 1978), Grace Paley (1993), Elaine Perry (1993), Harry Mark Petrakis (1977), Harold Pinter (1977), Katherine Anne Porter (1977), Gabrielle Roy (1973), Salman Rushdie (1985), Jim Sagel (1985), Barbara Sapergia (1988), Leslie Marmon Silko (1993), Lois Simmie (1988), Elizabeth Spencer (1989), Mary Hays Weik (1974), Rita Williams-Garcia (1993), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). CHARACTERS MAKE DEMANDS ON WRITERS: Milton Acorn (1984), Sue Alexander (1979), Rudolfo Anaya (1980), Edward Anhalt (1972), Eileen Bassing (1964), Alice Childress (1987), Julia Cunningham (1979), Robertson Davies (1978), Brianda Domecq (1994), William Faulkner (1966), Jules Feiffer (1989), Timothy Findley (1973 Gibson, 1973 Cameron), Griselda Gamboro (1987), Kaye Gibbons (1993), Epeli Hau’ofa (1989), Evan Hunter (1989), Frederick Manfred (1974), Eve Merriam (1987), John Mortimer (1989), Joyce Carol Oates (1978), Reynolds Price (1972), Louisa Shotwell (1974), Megan Terry (1987), Michael Waters (1989), Barbara Wersba (1979), Rita Williams-Garcia (1993), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). CHARACTERS TRY TO TAKE OVER: Miguel Angel Asturias (1973), Eileen Bassing (1964), Kay Boyle (1976), Ray Bradbury (1980), Erskine Caldwell

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

158 Notes

21. 22.

23.

24.

25.

(1988), Alice Childress (1987), Julia Cunningham (1974), Isak Dinesen (1977), Brianda Domecq (1994), Owen Dodson (1973), Ariel Dorfman (1989), John Dos Passos (1973), Ralph Ellison (1974), William Faulkner (1977), Thomas Fleming (1989), E. M. Forster (1977), Ernest J. Gaines (1976), Kaye Gibbons (1993), Dave Godfrey (1973), Epeli Hau’ofa (1989), Beth Henley (1982), Buck Henry (1972), Corinne Jacker (1987), Elmer Kelton (1980), William Kennedy (1987), Barbara Kingsolver (1993), Margaret Laurence (1973 Cameron), Ursula K. Le Guin (1987), Olga Masters (1986), Eve Merriam (1987), James A. Michener (1978), Martin Myers (1973), Vladimir Nabokov (1972), Andre Norton (1978), Joyce Carol Oates (1978), Kole Omotoso (1974), Anne Perry (1983), Katherine Anne Porter (1977), Leo Rosten (1964), Salman Rushdie (1985), William Sansom (1974), Philip Schultz (1989), Louisa Shotwell (1974), Lois Simmie (1988), Armonía Somers (1985), David Storey (1985), Megan Terry (1987), Mary Hays Weik (1974), Sylvia Wilkinson (1973), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). CHARACTERS OPERATE AS CRITICS: Rudolfo Anaya (1980), Saul Bellow (1972 Enck), Owen Dodson (1973), William Inge (1971), R. A. Lafferty (1978). In this “interview-by-mail,” Oates puts two words—”characters” and “plots”—in quotation marks. Yet she does not so distinguish other terms— ”people,” “strangers,” “crowded,” “appear,” “define themselves”—which she is, in fact, using in a special, figurative sense—as part of CHARACTERS ARE CO-AUTHORS. The result suggests that the language of “literary” communication seems artificial and inexact; the language of CHARACTERS ARE CO-AUTHORS, real and appropriate. CHARACTERS ARE REAL: Personifying one’s characters suggests that they are real persons, but authors also may say so explicitly: Harry Mark Petrakis says his characters are “real” (1977); Katherine Anne Porter says to her interviewer, “They exist as independently inside my head as you do before me now” (1977, p. 154); Alfred Coppel reports, “when a book is going well and nearing the end … my fictional characters are more real than actual people” (1976, p. 81). Others include Julia Cunningham (1979), Thomas Fleming (1989), Gordon Gordon (1964), Madeleine L’Engle (1974 Hopkins), Tom Mallin (1981), Harry Mark Petrakis (1977), Lois Simmie (1988), Louisa Shotwell (1974), Elizabeth George Speare (1974), Mary Stolz (1974), Edmund White (1988), Marguerite Yourcenar (1984). Similarly, Harold Pinter criticizes inescapably loquacious characters in The Birthday Party and The Caretaker: “Too many words irritate me sometimes, but I can’t help them, they just seem to come out—out of the fellow’s mouth” (1977, p. 359). The interviewer here may be referring to such occasions as Forster’s Paris Review interview: INTERVIEWER: … has a novel ever taken an unexpected direction? FORSTER: Of course, that wonderful thing, the character running away with you—which happens to everyone—that’s happened to me, I’m afraid … (E. M. Forster, 1977, p. 28).

26. The interviewer here may be referring to such occasions as Porter’s Paris Review interview, partly quoted in an earlier footnote:

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 159

160 Notes

I have had people object to Mr. Thompson’s suicide at the end of Noon Wine, and I’d say, “All right, where was he going? Given what he was, his own situation, what else could he do?” Every once in a while when I see a character of mine just going towards perdition, I think, “Stop, stop, you can always stop and choose, you know.” But no, being what he was, he already has chosen, and he can’t go back on it now. (Katherine Anne Porter, 1977, p. 152) 27. Albee does say in the same interview, “The characters’ lives have gone on before the moment you chose to have the action of the play begin. And their lives are going to go on after you have lowered the final curtain of the play, unless you’ve killed them off…. where do you end that? Where the characters seem to come to a pause … where they seem to want to stop—rather like, I think, the construction of a piece of music” (1977, p. 344).

6

Authorship and Intellectual Labor

1. Different constituencies have different purposes for the concept of authorship: literary critics, legal authorities, and general readers all differ in their definitions of authorship according to their specific purposes, each arena offering opportunity for controversy and misunderstanding. So authorship stands at a nexus of concerns and strategies, produced not only by systems of promotion, but by specific histories of production and distribution, by characteristics of readerships, by legal constraints, and by the concerns of legal and literary scholarship. 2. According to Bakhtin: “Language is realized in the form of individual concrete utterances (oral or written) by participants in the various areas of human activity… . Each separate utterance is individual, of course, but each sphere in which language is used develops its own relatively stable types of these utterances. These we may call speech genres …. each sphere of activity contains an entire repertoire of speech genres that differentiate and grow as the particular sphere develops and becomes more complex” (1986, p. 60, emphasis in original). 3. Through their presence and the questions that they may ask, interviewers contribute much to the structure of the interview, and through the interaction, they influence the answers. Interviewers are partners, aides, stimulants, interferences, or irritants, but they are not simply a neutral source of information. In this way they are social. To suggest in consequence that writers and interviewers are therefore only engaged in “performance,” simply “assuming roles” in interviews does not render interviews especially imprecise or suspect, because many conversations are, in effect, “performances.” Some interactions would appear to be fraught with difficulties (see, for example, Morrissey, 1985).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

By the time I write the story my people are up and alive and walking around and taking things into their own hands. They exist as independently inside my head as you do before me now. (Katherine Anne Porter, 1977, p. 154)

4. Evelyn J. Hinz, in preparing her collection of interviews with Anais Nin (1975), and Robert J. Staton, in preparing his collection of interviews with Gore Vidal (1980), both selected passages from a number of interviews and re-grouped them so that comments on a particular subject matter appeared together—a pastiche. 5. David Neal Miller studied a range of interviews of Isaac Bashevis Singer, finding repeated use of similar stories across interviews. He indicates that at that time, the number of broadcast and print interviews of Singer must have been in the “hundreds.” Miller reports, “Singer’s most striking strategy is an almost word-for-word repetition of answers to a number of recurring questions” (1984, p. 196), as well as use of proverbs, verbal leitmotifs, and other intertextual gestures. 6. In many interviews, the interviewer and writer spend considerable time on the writer’s role as literary critic—analysis of the work of other authors, in particular, or delineation of authors who have influenced them. Subjects such as historical, political, and cultural issues, as well as issues of craft judgment, are also prominent. Because most interviews are limited in length and address a wide range of topics, there is a tendency to ask broad questions, to simplify the issues being discussed, to make generalizations, to touch on highlights rather than exploring the writing process in detail—all of which, I would expect to encourage the generation of metaphorical language both about specific composing acts and about composing processes in general. Many interviewers ask how ideas come to writers, what “the” creative process is like for them, do they ever have “writing blocks,” etc. Interviewers often want to know how a specific book or poem “originated,” or “started.” They ask about revision much less often. A significant number of interviewers assume—even encourage—writers to frame their writing as mysterious. Such interviewers remark that many writers won’t want to talk about work in progress, or object to talking about how they get ideas for fear of “jinxing” the process: “Are you one of those writers who …” or “I suppose you’d prefer not to talk about it …” Some interviewers phrase their questions by using metaphorical stories about writing processes. The vagaries of such social interaction and the varied styles of different interviews undoubtedly influence how authors describe their writing processes. In the “formalized” conversational situation of the interview, authors and interviewers both reveal expectations about what to say about composing—and how long to spend saying it. We are able to see the foci of attention for both writers and interviewers: their definitions of composing, the kinds of processes that they appear most interested or willing to talk about—and the kinds of metaphorical language both use to discuss composing. 7. The journal presented an overview of four “types” of interviews with authors, and the types of questions that Shakespeare might have been asked in such interviews. In the “professorial interview,” the interviewer would have sought explanations about the body of Shakespeare’s work—”to clear up a lot of

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 161

162 Notes

In the “opinionated interview,” the interviewer would have inquired about Shakespeare’s “political, religious, and socioeconomic attitudes”: “… do you believe in God? … What were your feelings about Queen Elizabeth? … Are you in favor of a constitutional monarchy? What do you feel about the concept of republican democracy? Christian socialism? Marxist communism? Freudian psychoanalysis? …” (pp. x–xi) In the “gossipy interview,” the interviewer would have been interested in Shakespeare’s personality and “extrapoetic activities”: “Who was the Dark Lady of the Sonnets? Who was the young man? Did you ever have any homosexual experiences? If not, why not? … What did you and Ben Jonson talk about in the Mermaid Tavern? … Could you both hold your malt?” (p. xi) In the fourth type of interview, the “craft interview,” the interviewer would have focused on “the circumstances of an artist’s work and not the work itself”: “Was Ben Jonson right when he said you never blotted out a single word? Was there no revision? How much work did you do in your head before you began setting it all down? … Did you always sit at the desk, or could you sometimes compose lying down or walking at night through the streets of London?” (pp. xi–xii) For this fourth type of interview, the editors comment, “Here we can imagine Shakespeare giving matter-of-fact answers to the questions, because they are, after all, the sort of specific thing which would concern him as a practicing poet.” (p. xii) 8. The editors of the New York Quarterly, for example, indicate that their interviews should be based on a solid knowledge of the author’s work, and assume the form of exchange. They supply a set of “sample” questions to reflect the general types that their interviewers might use. Note that questions 9, 10, and 12 explicitly focus on advice for aspiring writers. Question 4 might be answered either by reference to the author’s writing biography or as advice to aspiring writers and contemporary teachers of poetry. The pervasiveness of such questions leads to this undercurrent of pedagogy found in many literary interviews. 1. Would you describe the physical conditions of writing your poetry? Are you always at a desk? Do you do first drafts on typewriter or with pencil or with pen? On what kind of paper? As poems progress, what do you do with worksheets that you no longer need? 2. When you are away from your desk or writing area, do you carry a notebook with you? What do you do with thoughts or impulses that come to you when you are unable to record them easily?

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

pesky questions about subtexts and footnotes”: “ … are you really Francis Bacon? In that case, did you hide a bilateral cipher in any of your plays? … Who was the third murderer in Macbeth? Why did you drop Donalbain from the plot? …” (Packard, 1974, p. x)

3. What would you say about revision? Is it a creative act with you? Have you written anything that did not need extensive revision? Do you have any special procedure for revising a poem? 4. What do you feel is the value of the poetry workshop for a young poet? Did you take any when you were beginning to write poetry? What do you feel about student criticism of each other’s work? 5. Do you ever experience a dry period in writing, and if so what do you do about it? 6. Do you ever play games with the craft of poetry, prosody, for the fun of it, or for what it might lead to? Anagrams, palindromes, etc.? 7. What do you feel about the need for isolation in the life of a writer? How does it affect personal relationships? Professional activities such as teaching? 8. Have you ever received lines of poetry which you were unable to incorporate into a poem? What would you do with them, as a rule? 9. If a poet is about to fall asleep and suddenly thinks of an interesting poem or some interesting lines for a poem, what should he do? 10. What reference books do you feel are useful for a young poet to have on his desk, for consultation? 11. Do you feel we live in a particularly permissive age as far as education and discipline in craft are concerned, and if so, what effect is this having on the present stage of poetry being written today? 12. What poet do you feel would be a good model for a young writer to begin learning about poetry? (Packard, 1974, pp. xii–xiii) 9. Interviewer Charles Ruas begins the introduction to his collection of interviews with the statement: “The art of the literary interview is transforming a particular interrogation into a universal dialogue” (1984, p. xi). This move between particular and “universal” is common to discussions of interviews. Even more common is the attempt to find “trends” across writers about stages of composition, how stories began, and so forth (see, for example, Malcolm Cowley, in the introduction to the first collection of The Paris Review Interviews [1977]). 10. The argument here is congruent with that of musicologists such as Charles Hamm (1995) and Christopher Small (1998), who argue that the meaning of music is in the social acts at the points of performance and reception, rather than in “the song itself” (or the story). A work of art requires a knowing subject engaged in a socially constructed and shared activity. Readers and listeners are always active. 11. As Judith Butler argues: “We may be tempted to think that to assume the subject in advance is necessary in order to safeguard the agency of the subject. But to claim the subject is constituted is not to claim that it is determined; on the contrary, the constituted character of the subject is the very precondition of its agency. For what is it that enables a purposive and significant reconfiguration of cultural and political relations, if not a relation that can be turned upon itself, reworked, resisted? … My suggestion is that agency belongs to a way of thinking about persons as instrumental actors who confront an external political field. But if we agree that politics and power exist already at the level at which the subject and its agency are articulated and made possible, then agency can be presumed

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 163

12.

13.

14. 15.

7

only at the cost of refusing to inquire into its construction” (Butler, 1995 “Contingent,” p. 46). While his metaphor implies a subject that exists prior to a conversation, rather than coming into being within it, Burke explicitly situates speakers in discourse as part of an on-going drama of social life as an “unending conversation”: “Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending on the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress” (Kenneth Burke, 1967, pp. 110–11). Taylor argues, “The editing of Shakespeare is a small but paradigmatic example of the economies of culture, which depends on the manufacture of desire. People do not need editions of Shakespeare … the demand must be created in order to be satisfied” (1993, pp. 132–3). See Taylor’s humorous delineation of the “overdetermination” of earlier decisions about which authors will become central to literary studies. The kind of hierarchizing that infuses cultural stewardship is not required by notions of authorship as a site of creative and discursive endeavor. Judith Butler explains: “The critique of the subject is not a negation or repudiation of the subject, but, rather, a way of interrogating its construction as a pregiven or foundationalist premise” (Butler, 1995 “Contingent,” p. 42).

Authorship in an Economy of Promotion

1. Plimpton describes further promotion connected to The Paris Review interview series. At the 1964–65 World’s Fair in New York, The Paris Review created a booth to promote the magazine as well as sell other literary magazines (as well as shopping bags, French cigarettes, etc.). This booth—not itself a commercial success—was hung with blow-ups from the pages of The Paris Review: writings of Celine, Hemingway, Frost, and part of an interview with Evelyn Waugh. Thus the authorial interview serves to promote the magazine in which it appears not merely at the point of sale or later circulation, but in establishing the reputation that creates its audience. Plimpton’s remarks are illustrated with a picture of the booth (interview text visible). Illustrations also include a copy of the cover of the inaugural issue (volume 1, number 1, Spring 1953); the table of contents—displayed on the cover— lists, as its first item, an interview with E. M. Forster (1978, p. 529). (To demonstrate the full circulation of promotion, Plimpton’s remarks are also illustrated with a pictorial advertisement for Peck and Peck showing a

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

164 Notes

woman wearing a handsome coat and gloves. The caption reads: “There is a certain kind of woman who reads Peanuts and the The Paris Review. For this woman, there is a certain kind of store: Peck and Peck” [p. 535].) For further discussion of The Paris Review, see brief information in Butts (1992). 2. Graham Holderness comments on the use of the “concept” of Shakespeare in a poem by Matthew Arnold: “The concept ‘Shakespeare’ manipulated here signifies not a man or a writer, but a canonized literary achievement into which the life of the man has been absorbed. The object constructed is a universal totality of human experience, embodying within itself all the pains, griefs and weaknesses of humanity, triumphantly and ‘victoriously’ controlled and integrated into a serene harmony, a pure transcendence disdaining all that man is, all mere complexities … Shakespeare, the work, can be integrated into that idealist totality [implied by Matthew Arnold] only by wrenching it free from any organic connection with the historical conditions of its production, and by liberating it from any dependence on readership or audience. Shakespeare the writer has become ‘Shakespeare,’ the purely autonomous producer of a pure autonomous object … The object itself transcends criticism, disdains question, repudiates its origins and its relations with the common life of humanity, the concrete social world of living history ….” (1985, pp. 1–2). Holderness argues that this “concept” of Shakespeare, abstracted from the writer, is always present: “ ‘Shakespeare’ is everywhere… . It is probable that every English-speaking citizen of Britain has heard of Shakespeare: not necessarily from plays or books, but from advertisements, tourist attractions, television comedies, the names of pubs and beers. In this context ‘Shakespeare’ (a concept which is evidently distinguishable from the writer of plays) appears as a universal symbol of high art, of ‘culture,’ of education, of the English spirit” (1985, p. 3). 3. A number of fascinating and by no means disrespectful accounts of the cultural uses of Shakespeare in Britain and America demonstrate that the use of Shakespeare’s name for cultural purposes is long-standing, extends far beyond the academy, infiltrating numerous aspects of public and cultural life, and changes over time according to various social interests. See, for example, Bristol (1996, 1990), Hawkes (1992, 1986), Holderness (1988, 1985), Taylor (1989). Bristol’s Big-Time Shakespeare (1996) is specifically focused on the commercial use of Shakespeare’s name and the reputation of his works—in other words, “Shakespeare” as a vehicle of commercial promotion. The absence of Shakespeare’s name from many film versions of the plays, Bristol remarks, can prompt viewers “to supply the omission by invoking the name of Shakespeare for themselves,” which allows the producers to avoid, by explicit reference to Shakespeare’s name, “the admonitory accent of parental encouragement” (1996, p. ix). The other books listed include discussion of Shakespeare’s name and reputation in both literarycritical and general cultural settings. Interesting also is Levine (1988), on the possible changing role of Shakespeare in the nineteenth-century American cultural scene, moving toward its position as an icon of “high culture.” 4. Hirsch’s own name functions as a promotional device for the series of books he produced subsequent to the publication of Cultural Literacy. No

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 165

doubt in response to the possibility of marketing accessible compendia of what might need to be known, Hirsch produced a series of dictionaries as guidelines to the instruction for the cultural “cement” he argued in Cultural Literacy to be absent in American life. See, for example, The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Hirsch, Kett, and Trefil, 1988, Second Ed., 1989). A series of such dictionaries were developed for children: A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Our Children Need to Know (Hirsch with Rowland and Stanford, 1989), followed by What Your First Grader Needs to Know (Hirsch 1991), What Your Second Grader Needs to Know (Hirsch, 1991), Third (Hirsch, 1992), Fourth (Hirsch, 1992), Fifth (Hirsch 1993), Sixth (Hirsch, 1993). 5. According to Jennifer Wicke, in mid-nineteenth century Britain advertising had “become an institution—a center of knowledge production, a determining economic site, as well as a representational system comprising a vastly heterogeneous set of artifacts” (1988, p. 1). Wicke links the promotion of advertising to the development of the novel and features of modern authorship, arguing that advertising of texts had emerged concurrent with—and helping create—the establishment of the novel: the prefatory material advertising the text also served to establish the context in which it was to be received, providing various claims for the importance of the text, celebrations of authorship, polemics about the proper role of the text as intellectual property and its role as a significant contribution to culture, promises of entertainment, and more. 6. I frequently see arguments to the effect that such theorists as Roland Barthes (1977), Jacques Derrida (1976), and Michel Foucault (1977) are “hypocritical” because they question ways in which scholars have situated authorship—yet themselves participate in systems of contemporary criticism and promotion. Critics greet their arguments about the epistemological and political roles of authors as if they were fiats, to be judged on the “worthiness” of the theorists’ “characters.” This criticism misunderstands— perhaps willfully—both the theorists’ arguments and the role of any individual author in systems of promotion. To analyze and question aspects of the system of authorial promotion and study is not to declare oneself able to transcend such a system, to promise to publish all one’s texts anonymously, to allow others free use of one’s text, to write poorly so that one will not be read. Yet this is the tenor of all too many criticisms of the three theorists. Parallel to such charges are the equally trivial or naive charges that academic authors are “careerist” when they produce scholarship that is successfully promoted within this system. Part of what critics of the alleged academic “careerism” of Foucault, Barthes, Derrida seem to resent is exactly the inclusion of academic authors in the culture of consumption and promotion surrounding contemporary authorship. Discussion of academic authorship framed in ways useful to considering it within a culture of promotion is found in Bourdieu (1988) and Lamont (1987). Wernick (1991) discusses the contemporary university as part of the cultures of promotion. 7. Stephen Greenblatt, in “Capitalist Culture and the Circulatory System” (1993) argues that the apparent contradictions characteristic of capitalism reveal naming as a site of tension in the circulation of capitalist discourses: capitalism, rather than merely assaulting identities, also generates and inscribes individual identities and demarcates their boundaries. Authorship

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

166 Notes

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

and copyright are closely linked at exactly the point of the name within a network of property. See, for example, Gaines (1991), Hesse (1991), Rose (1993), Woodmansee and Jaszi (1994). Anthony Trollope remarked, “It is a matter of course that in all things the public should trust to established reputation. It is as natural that a novel reader wanting novels should send to a library for those by George Eliot or Wilkie Collins, as that a lady when she wants a pie should go to Fortnum and Mason. Fortnum and Mason can only make themselves Fortnum and Mason by dint of time and good pies combined” (Trollope [1947/1883, p. 172], quoted in Becker [1982, p. 24]). Because of his suspicions that the author’s name influenced reception of his work (and other writers of note), Trollope had engaged in an “experiment” of attempting to publish stories under another name. Blackwood, the publisher, released two such stories, to indifferent success, but refused a third. This network is extended when, with the evolution of monopoly and other “depersonalized” forms of capitalism, the “autonomy and identity of producing units has itself become just a promotional fiction…. [The author’s name, like the brand-name, becomes] a screen on which the anonymous capital can be repersonalized (and reauthorized) through the projection on to it of human attributes” (Wernick [1993, p. 94]). According to McDonald (1997), the most famous interviewer of the 1890s was Raymond Blathwayt, who published interviews in a wide range of magazines and newspapers (McDonald cites numerous interviews in periodicals as well as Blathwayt [1893].) Salmon argues: “From as early as the 1870s, James had recognized that the cultural situation of the modern author was changing. Whereas, formerly, authorship had occupied a space between private and public spheres, in the latter half of the nineteenth century it was increasingly subsumed into the latter. From its inception, of course, the literary market had enhanced the public circulation of private subjectivities: as a commodity, the literary text functioned as an exemplary medium of ‘intimate’ communication within the public sphere. Yet the public function of the print medium was also predicated upon the assumption that authors themselves simultaneously inhabited the sphere of private individuals. During the course of his own career, James witnessed the emergence of new practices of biographical and journalistic representation in which both the ‘personality’ of the author and the material site of artistic labor were systematically exhibited as objects of public consumption. The author’s ‘life’ became a site of publicity as much as, if not more than, his or her ‘work’ “ (Salmon, 1997, pp. 78–9, footnote omitted). See for example, Carroll (1982), Culver (1985), Holland (1982), Miller (1998), Rivkin (1995), Sedgwick (1995). Wernick argues: “What promotion exemplifies, in short, is what Derrida calls the logic of the supplement. The fate of contemporary writing … is to be doubly caught up in this supplementarity. First, by being commodified in itself, whence: writing as self-advertising; the name as promotional sign; … Secondly, by being incorporated into an economic sector … which itself serves as a promotional vehicle for the general circulation of commodities” (Wernick, 1993, p. 100, emphasis added). Wernick cites the following

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes 167

passage from Jacques Derrida: “… the supplement supplements. It adds only to replace. It intervenes or insinuates itself in-the-place-of; if it fills, it is as if one fills a void…. Compensatory [suppleant] and vicarious, the supplement is an adjunct, a subaltern instance which takes-(the)-place [tient-lieu] … Somewhere, something can be filled up of itself, only by allowing itself to be filled through sign and proxy. The sign is always the supplement of the thing itself” (Derrida, 1976, p. 145, emphasis in original).

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

168 Notes

Abrams, M. H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Oxford U P, 1953. Alamargot, Denis and Lucile Chanquoy. Through the Models of Writing. Boston: Kluwer, 2001. Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Trans. B. Brewster. New York: Monthly Review P, 1971. 127–86. Altick, Richard D. Lives and Letters: A History of Literary Biography in England and America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965. (pp. 116–18 have to do with home tours.) Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. New York: Verso, 1983. Anesko, Michael. “Friction with the Market”: Henry James and the Profession of Authorship. New York: Oxford U P, 1986. Armstrong, Cherryl. Tracking the Muse: The Composing Processes of Poets. Diss. U of California, Santa Barbara, 1985. Armstrong, Nancy and Leonard Tennenhouse. The Imaginary Puritan: Literature, Intellectual Labor, and the Origins of Personal Life. Berkeley: U of California P, 1992. Arnold, Matthew. “The Buried Life.” The Poems of Matthew Arnold. Ed. Kenneth Allott. Second Ed. Miriam Allott. London: Longman, 1979. 286–91. Bakhtin, M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Trans. Vern W. McGee. Ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1984. Bakhtin, M. M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. and Ed. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1986. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene Iswolsky. Cambridge: MIT P, 1968. Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination. Trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. Balibar, Etienne. “The Nation Form: History and Ideology.” Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. Balibar Trans. Chris Turner. London: Verso, 1991. 86–106. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image—Music-Text. Ed. Stephen Heath. London: Fontana, 1977. 142–48. Barthes, Roland. “The Writer on Holiday.” Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. London: Jonathan Cape, 1972. 29–31. Beaugrande, Robert de. Text Production: Toward a Science of Composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1984. Becker, Howard S. Art Worlds. Berkeley: U of California P, 1982. Bereiter, Carl and Marlene Scardamalia. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987. Berger, John. About Looking. New York: Pantheon, 1980. Berkenkotter, Carol. “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer.” College Composition and Communication 34 (1983): 156–68. 169

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Critical References

Berthoff, Ann E. Forming, Thinking, Writing: The Composing Imagination. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden, 1978. Berthoff, Ann E. The Making of Meaning: Metaphors, Models, and Maxims for Writing Teachers. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1981. Blathwayt, Raymond. Interviews. London: A. W. Hall, Great Thoughts Office, 1893. Bloom, Benjamin S., J. Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus. Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw Hill, 1971. Borus, Daniel H. Writing Realism: Howells, James, and Norris in the Mass Market. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1989. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: Social Critique of the Judgments of Taste. Trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Harvard U P, 1984. First pubd. 1979. Bourdieu, Pierre. Homo Academicus. Trans. Peter Collier. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1988. Bracewell, Robert J. “Investigating the Control of Writing Skills.” Research on Writing: Principles and Methods. Ed. Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tabor, and Sean A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 177–203. Braudy, Leo. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History. Oxford: Oxford U P, 1986. Bristol, Michael D. Big-Time Shakespeare. New York: Routledge, 1996. Bristol, Michael D. Carnival and Theater: Plebian Culture and the Structure of Authority in Renaissance England. New York: Methuen, 1985. Bristol, Michael D. Shakespeare’s America, America’s Shakespeare. New York: Routledge, 1990. Britton, James. “Shaping at the Point of Utterance.” Prospect and Retrospect: Selected Essays of James Britton. Ed. Gordon M. Pradl. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/ Cook, 1982. 139–45. Brodhead, Richard H. Cultures of Letters: Scenes of Reading and Writing in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993. Brodkey, Linda. “Modernism and the Scene(s) of Writing.” College English 49.4 (1987): 396–418. Bromell, Nicholas K. By the Sweat of the Brow: Literature and Labor in Antebellum America. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993. Brown, Ann L. “Metacognitive Development and Reading.” Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Ed. Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. 453–81. Brugman, Claudia. “Give and Take in Conversation: A Reinvestigation of the Conduit Metaphor.” Paper presented at the Fourth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Albuquerque, NM. 1995. Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall, 1945. Burke, Kenneth. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Second Ed. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U P, 1967. Butler, Judith. “Contingent Foundations.” Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, Nancy Fraser. New York: Routledge, 1995. 35–57. Butler, Judith. “For a Careful Reading.” Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, Nancy Fraser. New York: Routledge, 1995. 127–44. Butler, Judith. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1997.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

170 Critical References

Butts, Leonard C. “The Paris Review.” The Twentieth Century American Literary Magazines. Ed. Edward E. Chielens. Westport, CN: Greenwood, 1992. 240–44. Caesar, Ann Hallamore. Characters and Authors in Luigi Pirandello. New York: Oxford U P, 1998. Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1963. Carroll, David. “The (Dis)Placement of the Eye (“I”): Point of View, Voice, and the Forms of Fiction.” The Subject in Question: The Languages of Theory and the Strategies of Fiction. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1982. 51–87. Cicourel, Aaron V. Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free P of Glencoe, 1964. Clark, Timothy. The Theory of Inspiration: Composition as a Crisis of Subjectivity in Romantic and Post-Romantic Writing. Manchester: Manchester U P, 1997. Cowley, Malcolm, ed. Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. First Series. New York: Penguin, 1977. Culler, A. Dwight. Imaginative Reason: The Poetry of Matthew Arnold. New Haven: Yale U P, 1966. Culver, Stuart. “Representing the Author: Henry James, Intellectual Property and the Work of Writing.” Henry James: Fiction as History. Ed. Ian F. A. Bell. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble, 1985. 114–36. Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans. Willard R. Trask. London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1953. D’Andrade, Roy. “A Folk Model of the Mind.” Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Ed. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn. New York: Cambridge U P, 1987. 112–48. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1976. duBois, Page. Torture and Truth. New York: Routledge, 1991. Elbow, Peter. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford U P, 1981. Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. London: Oxford U P, 1973. Elias, Norbert. The Society of Individuals. Ed. Michael Schroter. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon. “Sources of Evidence on Cognition: A Historical Overview.” Cognitive Assessment. Ed. Thomas V. Merluzzi, Carol R. Glass, and Myles Genest. New York: Guilford, 1981. 16–51. Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon. “Verbal Reports as Data.” Psychological Review 89 (1980): 215–251. Ferguson, Harvie. Modernity and Subjectivity: Body, Soul, Spirit. Charlottesville: U P of Virginia, 2000. Flavell, John H. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry.” American Psychologist 34 (1979): 206–18. Flavell, John H. “Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving.” The Nature of Intelligence. Ed. L. B. Resnick. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1976. 231–35. Flower, Linda S. and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32 (1981): 365–87. Flower, Linda S. and John R. Hayes. “The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem.” College Composition and Communication 31 (1980): 21–32.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Critical References 171

Flower, Linda S., John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and James Stratman. “Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision.” College Composition and Communication 37.1 (1986): 16–55. Flower, Linda and John R. Hayes. “The Dynamics of Composing: Making Plans and Juggling Constraints.” Cognitive Processes in Writing. Ed. L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. 31–50. Flower, Linda. “The Role of Conscious Processing in the Making of Meaning.” Thinking, Reasoning, and Writing. Ed. Elaine Maimon, Barbara Nodine, and Finbarr O’Connor. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1989. Forrest-Pressley, D. L., G. E. MacKinnon, and T. Gary Waller. Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance. Orlando, FL: Academic P, 1985. Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ed. Donald F. Bouchard. Trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Ithaca: Cornell U P, 1977. 113–38. Fowles, John. The French Lieutenant’s Woman. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969. Freedman, Jonathan. Professions of Taste: Henry James, British Aestheticism, and Commodity Culture. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1990. Gado, Frank, ed. First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing. Schenectady, NY: Union College P, 1973. Gaines, Jane M. Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice, the Law. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1991. Gentner, Dedre and Donald R. Gentner. “Flowing Water or Teeming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity.” Mental Models. Ed. Dedre Gentner and Albert L. Stevens. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983. 99–129. Gibbs, Raymond W. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge U P, 1994. Goldberg, Jonathan. Writing Matter: From the Hands of the English Renaissance. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1990. Golson, G. Barry, ed. The Playboy Interview. New York: Wideview Books, 1981. Goosens, Louis. “Metonomy in the Pipeline: Another Way of Looking at the Container Metaphor.” Perspectives on English: Studies in Honour of Professor Emma Vorlat. Ed. Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse, and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. 386–94. Grady, Joe. “The ‘Conduit Metaphor’ Revisited: A Reassessment of Metaphors for Communication.” Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Ed. Jean-Pierre Koenig. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1998. 205–18. Greenblatt, Stephen. “Capitalist Culture and the Circulatory System.” The Aims of Representation: Subject/Text/History. Ed. Murray Krieger. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1993. 257–73. Gruber, Howard E. and Sara N. Davis. “Inching Our Way Up Mount Olympus: The Evolving-Systems Approach to Creative Thinking.” The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. Ed. Robert J. Sternberg. New York: Cambridge U P, 1988. 243–71. Hamm, Charles. Putting Popular Music in Its Place. New York: Cambridge U P, 1995. Hawkes, Terence. Meaning by Shakespeare. New York: Routledge, 1992. Hawkes, Terence. That Shakespeherian Rag: Essays on a Critical Process. New York: Methuen, 1986.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

172 Critical References

Hayes, John R. and Linda S. Flower. “Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes.” Cognitive Processes in Writing. Ed. Lee W. Gregg and Erwin R. Steinberg. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. 3–30. Hayes, John R. and Linda S. Flower. “Uncovering Cognitive Processes in Writing.” Research in Writing: Principles and Methods. Ed. Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tamor, and Sean A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 206–20. Hekman, Susan. “Subjects and Agents: The Question for Feminism.” Provoking Agents: Gender and Agency in Theory and Practice. Ed. Judith Kegan Gardiner. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1995. 194–207. Herbert, Christopher. Culture and Anomie. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1991. Hesse, Carla. Publishing and Cultural Politics in Revolutionary Paris, 1788–1810. Berkeley: U of California P, 1991. Hinz, Evelyn J., ed. A Woman Speaks: The Lectures, Seminars, and Interviews of Anais Nin. Chicago: The Swallow P, 1975. Hirsch, E. D. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987. Hirsch, E. D. What Your First Grader Needs to Know. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Hirsch, E. D. What Your Second Grader Needs to Know. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Hirsch, E. D. What Your Third Grader Needs to Know. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hirsch, E. D. What Your Fourth Grader Needs to Know. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hirsch, E. D. What Your Fifth Grader Needs to Know. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Hirsch, E. D. What Your Sixth Grader Needs to Know. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Hirsch, E. D., ed.; William G. Rowland and Michael Stanford, assoc. eds. A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Our Children Need to Know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. Hirsch, E. D., Joseph F. Kett and James Trefil. The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988. Hirsch, E. D., Joseph F. Kett and James Trefil. The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Second Ed. Revised and Updated. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993. Holderness, Graham, ed. The Shakespeare Myth. New York: Manchester U P, 1988. Holderness, Graham. Shakespeare’s History. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1985. Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn, eds. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. New York: Cambridge U P, 1987. Holland, Laurence B. “The ‘Religion of Doing’: III: The Prefaces.” The Expense of Vision: Essays on the Craft of Henry James. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1982. 155–82. Jacobson, Marcia. Henry James and the Mass Market. Birmingham, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. James, Henry. The Art of the Novel: Critical Prefaces. Ed. Richard P. Blackmur. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca, NY: Cornell U P, 1981. Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987. Kellogg, Ronald T. The Psychology of Writing. New York: Oxford U P, 1994.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Critical References 173

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967. Kittler, Friedrich A. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Trans. Geoffrey WinthropYoung and Michael Wutz. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1999. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. “Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language.” The Journal of Philosophy 77 (1980): 453–86. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Perseus, 1999. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Tell Us About the Nature of Thought. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986. Lamont, Michelle. “How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida.” American Journal of Sociology 93.3 (1987): 548–622. Law, Jules David. The Rhetoric of Empiricism: Language and Perception from Locke to I. A. Richards. Ithaca: Cornell U P, 1993. Levine, George. “From ‘Know-not-Where’ to ‘Nowhere.’ “ The Victorian City: Images and Realities. Ed. H. J. Dyos and Michael Wolff. Vol. 2. New York: Routledge, 1973. 495–516. Levine, Lawrence. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U P, 1988. Mandel, Barrett J. “The Writer Writing is Not at Home.” College Composition and Communication 31 (1980): 370–77. Mandler, Jean M. Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984. Masten, Jeffrey, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy J. Vickers, eds. Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production. New York: Routledge, 1997. McDonald, Peter D. British Literary Culture and Publishing Practice, 1880–1914. New York: Cambridge U P, 1997. Meltzer, Françoise. Hot Property: The Stakes and Claims of Literary Originality. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994. Merton, Robert. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” The Sociology of Science. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1973. 439–59. Miller, David Neal. “Isaac Bashevis Singer: The Interview as Fictional Drama.” Contemporary Literature 25.2 (1984): 187–204. Miller, J. Hillis. “ ‘The Figure in the Carpet.’ “ Reading Narrative. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 1998. 84–106. Miller, J. Hillis. “Matthew Arnold.” Matthew Arnold. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. 5–35. Miyoshi, Masao. The Divided Self: A Perspective on the Literature of the Victorians. New York: New York U P, 1969. Moran, Joe. “The Author as a Brand Name: American Literary Figures and the Time Cover Story.” Journal of American Studies 29 (December 1995): 349–63. Moran, Joe. Star Authors: Literary Celebrity in America. London: Pluto P, 2000. Morrissey, Charles T. “John Hawkes on Tape: The Paradox of Self-Identity in a Recorded Interview.” International Journal of Oral History 6.1 (1985): 47–56.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

174 Critical References

Murray, Donald M. “Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery.” Research on Composing: Points of Departure. Ed. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1978. 85–103. Reprinted in Learning by Teaching. Ed. Donald M. Murray. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1982. 72–87. Murray, Donald M. “Response of a Laboratory Rat—or, Being Protocoled.” College Composition and Communication 34 (1983): 169–72. Murray, Donald M. “The Feel of Writing—and Teaching Writing.” Learning by Teaching. Ed. Donald M. Murray. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1982. 42–49. Murray, Donald M. “Writing as Process: How Writing Finds Its Own Meaning.” Learning by Teaching. Ed. Donald M. Murray. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/ Cook, 1982. 17–31. Murray, Donald M. Learning by Teaching. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1982. Nisbett, Richard E. and Timothy DeCamp Wilson. “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes.” Psychological Review 84 (1977): 231–59. Norman, Donald A. “Some Observations on Mental Models.” Mental Models. Ed. Dedre Gentner and Albert L. Stevens. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983. 7–14. Ohmann, Richard. Selling Culture: Magazines, Markets, and Class at the Turn of the Century. New York: Verso, 1996. Packard, William, ed. The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. Pearson, John H. The Prefaces of Henry James: Framing the Modern Reader. University Park: Pennsylvania State U P, 1997. Perl, Sondra and Arthur Egendorf. “The Process of Creative Discovery: Theory, Research, and Implications for Teaching.” Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Writing. Ed. Donald McQuade. U of Akron: Studies in Contemporary Language, 1979. 121–27. Petroski, Henry. The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance. New York: Knopf, 1990. Pfister, Joel and Nancy Schnog. Inventing the Psychological: Toward a Cultural History of Emotional Life in America. New Haven: Yale U P, 1997. Pfister, Joel. Staging Depth: Eugene O’Neill and the Politics of Psychological Discourse. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1995. Philips, Deborah. “Mills and Boon: The Marketing of Moonshine.” Consumption, Identity, and Style: Marketing, Meanings, and the Packaging of Pleasure. Ed. Alan Tomlinson. New York: Routledge, 1990. 139–52. Pirandello, Luigi. Preface to “Six Characters in Search of an Author.” (Trans. E. Bentley.) Playwrights on Playwriting. Ed. T. Cole. New York: Hill and Wang, 1925, 1960. 204–16. Plimpton, George. “Enterprise in the Service of Art.” The Little Magazine in America: A Modern Documentary History. Ed. Elliott Anderson and Mary Kinzie. Yonkers, NY: Pushcart, 1978. 524–35. Queneau, Raymond. The Flight of Icarus. New York: New Directions, 1993. Quinn, Naomi. “Convergent Evidence for a Cultural Model of American Marriage.” Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Ed. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn. New York: Cambridge U P, 1987. 173–92. Raeburn, John. Fame Became of Him: Hemingway as Public Writer. Bloomington: Indiana U P, 1984.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Critical References 175

Reddy, Michael. “The Conduit Metaphor—A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language.” Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Second Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1993. 164–201. Riede, David G. Matthew Arnold and the Betrayal of Language. Charlottesville: U P of Virginia, 1988. Rijlaarsdam, Gert, Huub van den Bergh, and Michel Couzijn, eds. Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam U P, 1996. Rivkin, Julie. “Doctoring the Text: Henry James and Revision.” Henry James’s New York Edition: The Construction of Authorship. Ed. David McWhirter. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1995. 142–63. Roper, Alan. Arnold’s Poetic Landscapes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1969. Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U P, 1993. Rose, Mike. “Complexity, Rigor, Evolving Method, and the Puzzle of Writer’s Block: Thoughts on Composing Process Research.” When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies in Writer’s Block and Other Composing Process Problems. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guilford, 1985. 227–60. Rose, Mike. “Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language.” College Composition and Communication 31 (1980): 389–401. Rose, Mike. Writer’s Block: The Cognitive Dimension. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois U P, 1984. Rose, Nikolas. “Authority and the Geneology of Subjectivity.” Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity. Ed. Paul Heelas, Scott Lash, and Paul Morris. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996. 294–327. Rose, Nikolas. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. New York: Routledge, 1990. Ross, Lee. “Shortcomings of the Intuitive Psychologist.” Cognitive Theories in Social Psychology. Ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic P, 1978. Ross, Lee. “Some Afterthoughts on the Intuitive Psychologist.” Cognitive Theories in Social Psychology. Ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic P, 1978. Rowland, William G., Jr. Literature and the Marketplace: Romantic Writers and Their Audiences in Great Britain and the United States. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1996. Ruas, Charles, ed. Conversations with American Writers. New York: Knopf, 1984. Rumelhart, David E. “Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition.” Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Ed. Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. 33–58. Rumelhart, David E. and Andrew Ortony. “The Representation of Knowledge in Memory.” Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Ed. Richard C. Anderson, Rand J. Spiro, and William E. Montague. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977. 99–135. Salmon, Richard. Henry James and the Culture of Publicity. New York: Cambridge U P, 1997. Scardamalia, Marlene and Carl Bereiter. “Knowledge Telling.” Advances in Applied Linguistics. Ed. Sheldon Rosenberg. NY: Cambridge U P, 1987. Scardamalia, Marlene and Carl Bereiter. “The Development of Evaluative, Diagnostic and Remedial Capabilities in Children’s Composing.” The Psychology of Written Language: Developmental and Educational Perspectives. Ed. Margaret Martlew. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983. 67–95. Scarry, Elaine. “Participial Acts: Working.” Resisting Representation. New York: Oxford U P, 1994. 49–90.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

176 Critical References

Schon, Donald A. “Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Solving in Social Policy.” Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Second Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1993. 137–63. Schon, Donald A. Displacement of Concepts. London: Tavistock, 1963. Schon, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic, 1983. Schutz, Alfred. “On Multiple Realities.” Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. Ed. Maurice Natanson. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962. 207–59. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Shame and Performativity: Henry James’s New York Edition Prefaces.” Henry James’s New York Edition: The Construction of Authorship. Ed. David McWhirter. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1995. 206–39. Seltzer, Mark. Bodies and Machines. New York: Routledge, 1992. Silver, Brenda R. Virginia Woolf Icon. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1999. Siskin, Clifford. The Work of Writing: Literature and Social Change in Britain, 1700–1830. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1998. Small, Christopher. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover: Wesleyan/U P of New England, 1998. Smith, Eliot R. and Frederick D. Miller. “Limits on Perception of Cognitive Process: A Reply to Nisbett and Wilson.” Psychological Review 85 (1978): 355–62. Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Farrar, 1973. Spiro, Rand J. “Constructive Processes in Prose Comprehension and Recall.” Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Ed. Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. 245–78. Spivak, Gayatri C. “Reading The Satanic Verses.” What is an Author? Ed. Maurice Biriotti and Nicola Miller. New York: Manchester U P, 1993. 103–34. Stange, G. Robert. “The Frightened Poets.” The Victorian City: Images and Realities. Ed. H. J. Dyos and Michael Wolff. Vol. 2. New York: Routledge, 1973. 475–94. Stange, G. Robert. Matthew Arnold: The Poet as Humanist. Princeton: Princeton U P, 1967. Staton, Robert J. and Gore Vidal, eds. Views From a Window: Conversations with Gore Vidal. Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1980. Stein, Gertrude. “Composition as Explanation.” Selected Writings. Ed. Carl Van Vechten. New York: Random House, 1962. 511–24. Sweetser, Eve E. Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Diss. U of California, Berkeley, 1984. Sword, Helen. Engendering Inspiration: Visionary Strategies in Rilke, Lawrence, and H. D. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1995. Taylor, Charles. “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look. Ed. Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan. Berkeley: U of California P, 1987. 33–81. Taylor, Gary. “The Renaissance and the End of Editing.” Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities. Ed. George Bornstein and Ralph G. Williams. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1993. 121–49. Taylor, Gary. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History, From the Restoration to the Present. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1989. Tinker, C. B. and H. F. Lowry, eds. Poetical Works of Matthew Arnold. Matthew Arnold. New York: Oxford U P, 1950.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Critical References 177

Tomlinson, Barbara. “Talking About the Composing Process: The Limitations of Retrospective Accounts.” Written Communication 1.4 (1984): 206–18. Torrance, Mark and David Galbraith, eds. Knowing What to Write: Conceptual Processes in Text Production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam U P, 1999. Trollope, Anthony. An Autobiography. Berkeley: U of California P, 1947/1883. Turner, Alberta A., ed. Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. New York: David McKay, 1977. Turner, Mark. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987. Turner, Mark. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton U P, 1991. Turner, Mark. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford U P, 1996. Walser, Robert. “Deep Jazz: Notes on Interiority, Race, and Criticism.” Inventing the Psychological: Toward a Cultural History of Emotional Life in America. Ed. Joel Pfister and Nancy Schnog. New Haven: Yale U P, 1997. 271–96. Watts, Cedric. “Marketing Modernism: How Conrad Prospered.” Modernist Writers and the Marketplace. Ed. Ian Willison, Warwick Gould, and Warren Chernaik. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996. 81–88. Weedon, Chris. Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987. Weinstein, Cindy. The Literature of Labor and the Labors of Literature: Allegory in Nineteenth-Century American Fiction. New York: Cambridge U P, 1995. Wernick, Andrew. “Authorship and the Supplement of Promotion.” What is an Author? Ed. Maurice Biriotti and Nicola Miller. New York: Manchester U P, 1993. 85–103. Wernick, Andrew. Promotional Culture: Advertising, Ideology, and Symbolic Expression. London: Sage, 1991. White, Allon. “The Struggle Over Bakhtin: Fraternal Reply to Robert Young.” Cultural Critique 8 (1987/88): 217–41. White, Peter. “Limitations on Verbal Reports of Internal Events: A Refutation of Nisbett and Wilson and of Bem.” Psychological Review 87 (1980): 107–12. Wicke, Jennifer. Advertising Fictions: Literature, Advertisement and Social Reading. New York: Columbia U P, 1988. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford U P, 1977. Wilson, Christopher P. The Labor of Words: Literary Professionalism in the Progressive Era. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1985. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough. Ed. Rush Rhees. Trans. A. C. Miles. Retford, Nottinghamshire: Brynmill, 1979. Woodmansee, Martha and Peter Jaszi, eds. The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durham, NC: Duke U P, 1994. Woodmansee, Martha. The Author, Art, and the Market: Rereading the History of Aesthetics. New York: Columbia U P, 1994.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

178 Critical References

Abish, Walter. “Walter Abish.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987. 7–25. Achebe, Chinua. “An Interview with Chinua Achebe.” (Interv. Kay Bonetti.) Missouri Review 12.1 (1989): 63–83. Acorn, Milton. “Milton Acorn: In the Cause of the Working-Class.” (Interv. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan.) In Their Words: Interviews with Fourteen Canadian Writers. Ed. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan. Toronto: Anansi, 1984. 124–33. Adcock, Fleur. “Fleur Adcock.” (Interv. Harry Ricketts.) Talking About Ourselves: Twelve New Zealand Poets in Conversation with Harry Ricketts. Ed. Harry Ricketts. Wellington, NZ: Mallinson Rendel, 1986. 125–33. Adoff, Arnold. “Arnold Adoff.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 1–9. Aiken, Conrad. “Conrad Aiken.” (Interv. Robert Hunter Wilbur.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 21–44. Albee, Edward. “Edward Albee.” (Interv. William Flanagan.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 3rd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 321–46. Aldiss, Brian W. “Brian W. Aldiss.” (Interv. Paul Walker and James Goddard.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 397–416. Alexander, Margaret Walker. “Margaret Walker Alexander.” (Interv. John Griffin Jones.) Mississippi Writers Talking II. Ed. John Griffin Jones. Jackson: U P of Mississippi, 1983. 121–46. Alexander, Sue. “Sue Alexander.” (Interv. W. Jerry Weiss.) From Writers to Students: The Pleasures and Pains of Writing. Ed. M. Jerry Weiss. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1979. 4–9. Algren, Nelson. “Nelson Algren.” (Interv. H. E. F. Donohue.) Conversations with Nelson Algren. Ed. H. E. F. Donohue. New York: Hill and Wang, 1964. Algren, Nelson. “Nelson Algren.” (Interv. Alston Anderson and Terry Southern.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 231–49. Allen, Paula Gunn. “Paula Gunn Allen.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 1–18. Amis, Kingsley. “Kingsley Amis: The Art of Fiction LIX.” (Interv. Michael Barber.) The Paris Review 16.64 (1975): 67–72. Amis, Martin. “Martin Amis.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 1–24. Ammons, A. R. “Event: Corrective: Cure.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 32–8. 179

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References

Amorsi, Ray. “Ray Amorsi.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. Anaya, Rudolfo A. “Rudolpho A. Anaya.” (Interv. Bruce-Novoa.) Chicano Authors: Inquiry by Interview. Ed. Bruce-Novoa. Austin and London: U of Texas P, 1980. 183–202. Anderson, Jessica. “Jessica Anderson.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 28–49. Anderson, Poul. “Poul Anderson.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 107–20. Anderson, Robert. “Robert Anderson.” (Interv. Patricia Bosworth.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 3–5. Andrews, V. C. “V. C. Andrews.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 163–76. Anhalt, Edward. “Edward Anhalt.” (Interv. William Froug.) The Screenwriter Looks at the Screenwriter. Ed. William Froug. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972. 251–83. Anouilh, Jean. “Jean Anouilh.” (Interv. Ronald Hayman.) Playback. Ed. Ronald Hayman. London: Davis-Poynter Ltd., 1973. 21–30. Apple, Max. “An Interview with Max Apple.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 26–45. Arden, John. “John Arden.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 1–6. Ashbery, John. “Craft Interview with John Ashbery.” (Interv. Janet Bloom and Robert Losada.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 111–32. Asimov, Isaac. “Isaac Asimov.” (Interv. Charles Platt.) Dream Makers: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers at Work. Ed. Charles Platt. New York: Berkley Books, 1980. 1–7. Astley, Thea. “Thea Astley.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 50–69. Asturias, Miguel Angel. “Miguel Angel Asturias.” (Interv. Rita Guibert.) Seven Voices: Seven Latin American Writers Talk to Rita Guibert. Ed. Rita Guibert. Trans. Frances Partridge. New York: Vintage Books, 1973. 119–79. Atlan, Liliane. “Liliane Atlan.” (Interv. Catherine Ruello.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 15–30. Atwood, Margaret. “A Margaret Atwood Interview.” (Interv. Karla Hammond.) Concerning Poetry 12.2 (1978): 73–81. Atwood, Margaret. “Using What You’re Given.” (Interv. Jo Brans.) Listen to the Voices: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. Jo Brans. Dallas: Southern Methodist U P, 1988. 125–47.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

180 Interview References

Auchincloss, Louis. “Louis Auchincloss.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow P, 1989. 19–30. Auden, W. H. “W. H. Auden.” (Interv. Michael Newman.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 243–69. Auel, Jean M. “Jean M. Auel.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 208–19. Baird, Alexander. “Alexander Baird.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 7–12. Baldwin, Michael. “Michael Baldwin.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 13–19. Bambara, Toni Cade. “Toni Cade Bambara.” (Interv. Claudia Tate.) Black Women Writers at Work. Ed. Claudia Tate. New York: Continuum, 1983. 12–38. Barclay, Byrna. “Byrna Barclay.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 251–71. Barker, Pat. “Pat Barker.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 43–62. Barth, John. “John Barth.” (Interv. Frank Gado.) First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing. Ed. Frank Gado. Schenectady, NY: Union College P, 1973. 110–41. Barth, John. “John Barth.” (Interv. Heide Ziegler.) The Radical Imagination and the Liberal Tradition: Interviews with English and American Novelists. Ed. Heide Ziegler and Christopher Bigsby. London: Junction Books, 1982. 14–38. Barth, John. “John Barth.” (Interv. John J. Enck.) The Contemporary Writer: Interviews with Sixteen Novelists and Poets. Ed. L. S. Dembo and C. N. Pondrom. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1972. 18–29. Barth, John. “John Barth.” (Interv. Joe David Bellamy.) The New Fiction: Interviews with Innovative American Writers. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1974. 1–18. Barthelme, Donald. “Donald Barthelme.” (Interv. David W. McCullough.) People, Books and Book People. Ed. David W. McCullough. New York: Harmony Books, 1981. 15–16. Barthelme, Donald. “Donald Barthelme.” (Interv. Heide Ziegler.) The Radical Imagination and the Liberal Tradition: Interviews with English and American Novelists. Ed. Heide Ziegler and Christopher Bigsby. London: Junction Books, 1982. 39–59. Barthelme, Donald. “Donald Barthelme.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983. 32–44. Barthelme, Donald. “Embracing the World.” (Interv. Jo Brans.) Listen to the Voices: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. Jo Brans. Dallas: Southern Methodist U P, 1988. 77–101. Bassing, Eileen. “Eileen Bassing.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 39–47. Baybars, Taner. “Taner Baybars.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 21–5.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 181

Beagle, Peter S. “Peter S. Beagle.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./ William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 1–13. Beattie, Ann. “An Interview with Ann Beattie.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 46–65. Beckett, Samuel. “Samuel Beckett.” (Interv. John Gruen.) Close-up. Ed. John Gruen. New York: Viking P, 1968. 50–2. Bedford, Jean. “Jean Bedford.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 70–89. Bell, Marvin. “Marvin Bell.” (Interv. Nancy L. Bunge.) Finding the Words: Conversations with Writers Who Teach. Ed. Nancy L. Bunge. London: Ohio U P, 1985. 1–17. Bellow, Saul. “A Conversation with Saul Bellow.” (Interv. Chirantan Kulshrestha.) Chicago Review 23–24.4–1 (1972): 7–15. Bellow, Saul. “Saul Bellow.” (Interv. Gordon Lloyd Harper.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 3rd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 175–96. Bellow, Saul. “Saul Bellow.” (Interv. John J. Enck.) The Contemporary Writer: Interviews with Sixteen Novelists and Poets. Ed. L. S. Dembo and C. N. Pondrom. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1972. 30–4. Benedict, Pinckney. “Pinckney Benedict.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 46–61. Benedikt, Michael. “Michael Benedikt.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 46–53. Bennett, Bruce. “‘At the Border’: A Conversation with Bruce Bennett.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 249–59. Berryman, John. “John Berryman.” (Interv. Peter A. Stitt.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 293–322. Bester, Alfred. “Alfred Bester.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 302–14. Betts, Doris. “The Unique Voice: Doris Betts.” (Interv. George Wolfe.) Kite-Flying and Other Irrational Acts: Conversations with Twelve Southern Writers. Ed. John Carr. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U P, 1972. 149–73. Blackburn, Paul. “Craft Interview with Paul Blackburn.” (Interv. Patricia Norton and John O’Connell.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 11–17. Blackburn, Thomas. “Thomas Blackburn.” (Interv. John P.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 27–32.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

182 Interview References

Bloch, Robert. “Robert Bloch.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 10–22. Blume, Judy. “Judy Blume.” (Interv. W. Jerry Weiss.) From Writers to Students: The Pleasures and Pains of Writing. Ed. M. Jerry Weiss. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1979. 10–14. Blunden, Edmund. “Edmund Blunden.” (Interv. John P.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 33–7. Booth, Philip. “Lives We Keep Wanting to Know.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 84–92. Boston, Lucy. “Lucy Boston.” (Interv. Emma Fisher.) The Pied Pipers: Interviews with the Influential Creators of Children’s Literature. Ed. Justin Wintle and Emma Fisher. London: Paddington P Ltd., 1974. 277–84. Bottrall, Ronald. “Ronald Bottrall.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 39–44. Boyle, Kay. “Kay Boyle.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 15–35. Brackett, Leigh. “Leigh Brackett.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 370–83. Bradbury, Malcolm. “Malcolm Bradbury.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. New York: Methuen, 1985. 25–56. Bradbury, Ray. “Ray Bradbury.” (Interv. Charles Platt.) Dream Makers: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers at Work. Ed. Charles Platt. New York: Berkley Books, 1980. 171–82. Braun, Richard Emil. “We’re All Doctors Here: An Interview with Richard Emil Braun.” (Interv. Jerome Mazzaro.) Modern Poetry Studies 7 (1976): 178–95. Brinson-Pineda, Barbara. “Barbara Brinson-Pineda.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 16–27. Brooks, Mel. “Mel Brooks.” (Interv. Larry Wilde.) How the Great Comedy Writers Create Laughter. Ed. Larry Wilde. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1976. 39–61. Brophy, Brigid. “An Interview with Brigid Brophy.” (Interv. Leslie Dock.) Contemporary Literature 17 (1976): 151–70. Brown, Rosellen. “Rosellen Brown.” (Interv. Tom LeClair.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983. 45–62. Brunner, John. “John Brunner.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 315–24. Buckler, Ernest. “Ernest Buckler: A Conversation with an Irritated Oyster.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 1. 3–12. Budrys, Algis. “Algis Budrys.” (Interv. Charles Platt.) Dream Makers: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers at Work. Ed. Charles Platt. New York: Berkley Books, 1980. 111–20.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 183

Burnett, W. R. “W. R. Burnett: The Outsider.” (Interv. Ken Mate and Pat McGilligan.) Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Ed. Pat McGilligan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1986. 49–84. Burns, Alan. “Alan Burns.” (Interv. Charles Sugnet.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 161–8. Burns, Alan. “Alan Burns.” (Interv. Peter Firchow.) The Writer’s Place: Interviews on the Literary Situation in Contemporary Britain. Ed. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1974. 50–62. Burrs, Mick. “Mike Burrs.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 21–38. Cain, James M. “James M. Cain: Tough Guy.” (Interv. Peter Brunette and Gerald Peary.) Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Ed. Pat McGilligan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1986. 110–32. Caldwell, Erskine. “Book Burning.” (Interv. Jo Brans.) Listen to the Voices: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. Jo Brans. Dallas: Southern Methodist U P, 1988. 149–70. Caldwell, Erskine. “Erskine Caldwell.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 65–73. Calisher, Hortense. “Hortense Calisher.” (Interv. Barbara A. Bannon.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 24–6. Campbell, Joseph. “The Master of Mythology: Joseph Campbell.” (Interv. Joe Nigg and Derrick Jensen.) Living in Words: Interviews from The Bloomsbury Review 1981–1988. Ed. Gregory McNamee. Portland, OR: Breitenbush Books, 1988. 35–48. Campbell, Maria. “Maria Campbell.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 39–63. Campbell, Ramsey. “Ramsey Campbell.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 65–78. Campos, Julieta. “Julieta Campos.” (Interv. Evelyn Picon Garfield.) Women’s Voices from Latin America: Interviews with Six Contemporary Authors. Ed. Evelyn Picon Garfield. Detroit: Wayne State U P, 1985. 73–96. Capote, Truman. “Truman Capote.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. 37–56. Capote, Truman. “Truman Capote.” (Interv. Pati Hill.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 283–99. Capote, Truman. (Interv. Lawrence Grobel.) Conversations with Capote. New York: New American Library, 1985. Carr, Terry. “Terry Carr.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 168–207. Carruth, Hayden. “Hayden Carruth.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 58–69.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

184 Interview References

Carver, Raymond. “After the Fire, Into the Fire—An Interview with Raymond Carver.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 1–27. Carver, Raymond. “An Interview with Raymond Carver.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 66–82. Carver, Raymond. “Matters of Life and Death: Raymond Carver.” (Interv. William L. Stull.) Living in Words: Interviews from The Bloomsbury Review 1981–1988. Ed. Gregory McNamee. Portland, OR: Breitenbush Books, 1988. 143–56. Carver, Raymond. “Raymond Carver.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 76–94. Casey, Juanita. “An Interview with Juanita Casey.” (Interv. Gordon Henderson.) Journal of Irish Literature 1.3 (1972): 42–54. Cendrars, Blaise. “Blaise Cendrars.” (Interv. Michel Manoll.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 3rd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 31–56. Cervantes, Lorna Dee. “Lorna Dee Cervantes.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 39–53. Chappell, Fred. “Dealing with the Grotesque: Fred Chappell.” (Interv. John Sopko and John Carr.) Kite-Flying and Other Irrational Acts: Conversations with Twelve Southern Writers. Ed. John Carr. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U P, 1972. 216–35. Chappell, Fred. “Fred Chappell.” (Interv. John Graham.) The Writer’s Voice: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. George Garrett. New York: Morrow, 1973. 31–50. Cheever, John. “John Cheever: The Art of Fiction LXII.” (Interv. Annette Grant.) Paris Review 16.67 (1975): 39–66. Cherry, Kelly. “Kelly Cherry.” (Interv. Nancy L. Bunge.) Finding the Words: Conversations with Writers Who Teach. Ed. Nancy L. Bunge. London: Ohio U P, 1985. 18–39. Chester, Laura. “Laura Chester.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 70–8. Childress, Alice. “Alice Childress.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 62–74. Churchill, Caryl. “Caryl Churchill.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 75–84. Cisneros, Sandra. “Sandra Cisneros.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 54–74. Clark, Eleanor. “Eleanor Clark.” (Interv. David W. McCullough.) People, Books and Book People. Ed. David W. McCullough. New York: Harmony, 1981. 39–42.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 185

Clark, J. P. “J. P. Clark.” (Interv. Lewis Nkosi.) African Writers Talking: A Collection of Radio Interviews. Ed. Dennis Duerden and Cosmo Pieterse. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1972. 63–7. Clark, Leonard. “Leonard Clark.” (Interv. Phillip Hay and Angharad WynnJones.) Three Poets Two Children. Ed. Desmond Badham-Thornhill. Gloucester, England: Thornhill P, 1975. 13–33. Clarke, Austin. “Austin Clarke.” (Interv. Graeme Gibson.) Eleven Canadian Novelists. Ed. Graeme Gibson. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Limited, 1973. 33–54. Cocteau, Jean. “Jean Cocteau.” (Interv. William Fifield.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 3rd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 57–81. Cohen, Leonard. “Leonard Cohen: Working for the World to Come.” (Interv. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan.) In Their Words: Interviews with Fourteen Canadian Writers. Ed. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan. Toronto: Anansi, 1984. 26–42. Commire, Anne. “Anne Commire.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 85–93. Cook, Michael. “Michael Cook.” Stage Voices: Twelve Canadian Playwrights Talk About Their Lives and Work. Ed. Geraldine Anthony. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1978. 207–32. Coover, Robert. “Robert Coover.” (Interv. Christopher Bigsby.) The Radical Imagination and the Liberal Tradition: Interviews with English and American Novelists. Ed. Heide Ziegler and Christopher Bigsby. London: Junction Books, 1982. 79–92. Coover, Robert. “Robert Coover.” (Interv. Frank Gado.) First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing. Ed. Frank Gado. Schenectady, NY: Union College P, 1973. 142–59. Coppel, Alfred. “Alfred Coppel.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 71–85. Corke, Hilary. “Hilary Corke.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 51–6. Corpi, Lucha. “Lucha Corpi.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 75–85. Coulter, John. “John Coulter.” Stage Voices: Twelve Canadian Playwrights Talk About Their Lives and Work. Ed. Geraldine Anthony. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1978. 1–26. Coyne, John. “John Coyne.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 150–62. Creeley, Robert. “Contexts of Poetry: with Allen Ginsberg in Vancouver.” (Interv. Allen Ginsberg.) Contexts of Poetry: Interviews 1961–1971. Ed. Donald Allen. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973. 29–43. Creeley, Robert. “Craft Interview with Robert Creeley.” (Interv. Cornelia P. Draves and Mary Jane Fortunato.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

186 Interview References

York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 195–223. Creeley, Robert. “Interview with Lewis MacAdams.” (Interv. Lewis MacAdams.) Contexts of Poetry: Interviews 1961–1971. Ed. Donald Allen. Bolinas: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973. 137–70. Creeley, Robert. “Robert Creeley in Conversation with Charles Tomlinson.” (Interv. Charles Tomlinson.) Contexts of Poetry: Interviews 1961–1971. Ed. Donald Allen. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973. 13–28. Cunningham, Julia. “Julia Cunningham.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 105–10. Cunningham, Julia. “Julia Cunningham.” (Interv. W. Jerry Weiss.) From Writers to Students: The Pleasures and Pains of Writing. Ed. M. Jerry Weiss. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1979. 22–31. Cunningham, Veronica. “Veronica Cunningham.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 86–92. Dahl, Roald. “Roald Dahl.” (Interv. Justin Wintle.) The Pied Pipers: Interviews with the Influential Creators of Children’s Literature. Ed. Justin Wintle and Emma Fisher. London: Paddington P, 1974. 101–12. d’Alpuget, Blanche. “Blanche d’Alpuget.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 8–27. Davies, Robertson. “Robertson Davies.” Stage Voices: Twelve Canadian Playwrights Talk About Their Lives and Work. Ed. Geraldine Anthony. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1978. 55–84. Davies, Robertson. “The Art of Fiction CVII: Robertson Davies.” (Interv. Elisabeth Sifton.) Paris Review 31.110 (1989): 34–60. Dawson, Fielding. “A Dialogue: Fielding Dawson/T. E. Porter.” (Interv. T. E. Porter.) Falcon 5.9 (1974): 5–16. Delany, Samuel. “An Interview with Samuel Delany.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 83–110. Delgado, Abelardo. “Abelardo Delgado.” (Interv. Bruce-Novoa.) Chicano Authors: Inquiry by Interview. Ed. Bruce-Novoa. Austin and London: U of Texas P, 1980. 95–114. de Matteo, Donna. “Donna de Matteo.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 109–24. Dennis, Carl. “‘The Oracle in the World of Experience’: A Conversation with Carl Dennis.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The PostConfessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1989. 85–96. Deverell, Rex. “Rex Deverell.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 65–80.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 187

DeVries, Peter. “Peter De Vries.” (Interv. David W. McCullough.) People, Books and Book People. Ed. David W. McCullough. New York: Harmony, 1981. 46–8. Dickey, James. “An Interview with James Dickey.” (Interv. David L. Arnett.) Contemporary Literature 16 (1975): 286–300. Dickey, James. “Craft Interview with James Dickey.” (Interv. William Packard.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 133–51. Dickey, James. (Interv. James Dickey.) Self-Interviews. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1970. Dickey, James. James Dickey: Splintered Sunlight. Ed. Patricia De La Fuente. Edinburg, TX: School of Humanities, Pan American University, 1979. Didion, Joan. “Joan Didion: The Art of Fiction LXXI.” (Interv. Linda Kuehl.) Paris Review 20.74 (1978): 142–63. Dinesen, Isak. “Isak Dinesen.” (Interv. Eugene Walter.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 1–19. Doctorow, E. L. “E. L. Doctorow.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. 197–212. Doctorow, E. L. “E. L. Doctorow.” (Interv. John F. Baker.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 38–40. Doctorow, E. L. “E. L. Doctorow.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983. 91–105. Dodson, Owen. “Owen Dodson.” (Interv. John O’Brien.) Interviews with Black Writers. Ed. John O’Brien. New York: Liveright, 1973. 55–61. Doig, Ivan. “Ivan Doig.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 296–306. Domecq, Brianda. “Brianda Domecq.” (Interv. Kay S. García.) Broken Bars: New Perspectives from Mexican Women Writers. Ed. Kay S. García. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P, 1994.165–85. Donleavy, J. P. “J. P. Donleavy: The Art of Fiction LIII.” (Interv. Molly McKaughan.) Paris Review 16.63 (1975): 122–66. Dorfman, Ariel. “Ideology, Exile, and Language: An Interview with Ariel Dorfman.” (Interv. Peggy Boyers and Juan Carlos Lertora.) Salmagundi 82–83 (1989): 142–63. Dorn, Edward. “An Interview with Roy K. Okada.” (Interv. Roy K. Okada.) Edward Dorn: Interviews. Ed. Donald Allen. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1980. 36–58. Dorn, Edward. “Road-Testing the Language.” (Interv. Stephen Fredman.) Edward Dorn: Interviews. Ed. Donald Allen. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1980. 64–106. Dorn, Edward. “The Poetic Line.” (Interv. Robert Bertholf.) Edward Dorn: Interviews. Ed. Donald Allen. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1980. 59–63. Dos Passos, John. “John Dos Passos.” (Interv. David Sanders.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 67–89.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

188 Interview References

Dos Passos, John. “John Dos Passos.” (Interv. Frank Gado.) First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing. Ed. Frank Gado. Schenectady, NY: Union College P, 1973. 31–55. Douglas, Ellen. “Ellen Douglas.” (Interv. John Griffin Jones.) Mississippi Writers Talking II. Ed. John Griffin Jones. Jackson: U P of Mississippi, 1983. 47–73. Dove, Rita. “‘The Underside of the Story’: A Conversation with Rita Dove.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 151–65. Dowse, Sara. “Sara Dowse.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 90–109. Drabble, Margaret. “An Interview with Margaret Drabble.” (Interv. Nancy S. Hardin.) Contemporary Literature 14 (1973): 273–95. Drabble, Margaret. “Literature and Family: Margaret Drabble.” (Interv. Carol Caine London.) Living in Words: Interviews from The Bloomsbury Review 1981–1988. Ed. Gregory McNamee. Portland, OR: Breitenbush Books, 1988. 95–102. Drabble, Margaret. “Margaret Drabble.” (Interv. Joanne V. Creighton.) Margaret Drabble: Golden Realms. Ed. Dorey Schmidt. Edinburg, TX: School of Humanities, Pan American University, 1982. Drabble, Margaret. “Talking with Margaret Drabble.” (Interv. Dee Preussner.) Modern Fiction Studies 25.4 (1979/80): 563–77. Dugan, Alan. “An Interview with Alan Dugan.” (Interv. Keith Althaus.) Northwest Review 20.1 (1982): 75–85. Dugan, Alan. “An Interview with Alan Dugan.” (Interv. Michael Ryan.) Iowa Review 4.3 (1973): 90–7. Dunn, Douglas. “Douglas Dunn.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1981. 11–34. Dunn, Stephen. “‘Accumulating Observations’: A Conversation with Stephen Dunn.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 211–24. Dunne, Philip. “Philip Dunne: Fine Cabinetmaker.” (Interv. Tina Daniell.) Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Ed. Pat McGilligan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986. 151–69. Durrell, Lawrence. “Lawrence Durrell.” (Interv. Julian Mitchell and Gene Andrewski.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 2nd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 257–82. Durrell, Lawrence. (Interv. Marc Alyn.) The Big Supposer: Lawrence Durrell, A Dialogue with Marc Alyn. New York: Grove P, 1973. Eberhart, Mignon. “Mignon Eberhart.” (Interv. Jean F. Mercier.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 192–4. Eberhart, Richard. “An Interview (American Poetry Review).” (Interv. Irving Broughton.) Of Poetry and Poets. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1979. 264–301.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 189

Eberhart, Richard. “An Interview (Pulse).” (Interv. Michael Cannito, Jo Ann Thrash, and Robert J. Barnes.) Of Poetry and Poets. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1979. 249–63. Eberhart, Richard. “An Interview (Shenandoah).” (Interv. Denis Donoghue.) Of Poetry and Poets. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1979. 219–34. Eberhart, Richard. “Craft Interview with Richard Eberhart.” New York Quarterly 20 (1978): 16–27. Eberhart, Richard. “Richard Eberhart.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 85–9. Edmond, Lauris. “Lauris Edmond.” (Interv. Harry Ricketts.) Talking About Ourselves: Twelve New Zealand Poets in Conversation with Harry Ricketts. Ed. Harry Ricketts. Wellington, NZ: Mallinson Rendel, 1986. 59–69. Edmond, Murray. “Murray Edmond.” (Interv. Harry Ricketts.) Talking About Ourselves: Twelve New Zealand Poets in Conversation with Harry Ricketts. Ed. Harry Ricketts. Wellington, NZ: Mallinson Rendel, 1986. 161–72. Edson, Russell. “Russell Edson.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 90–4. Ekwensi, Cyprian. “Cyprian Ekwensi.” (Interv. Lewis Nkosi.) African Writers Talking: A Collection of Radio Interviews. Ed. Dennis Duerden and Cosmo Pieterse. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1972. 77–80. Elinson, Jack. “Jack Elinson: The Relationship of Humor to Aloneness and Togetherness.” (Interv. William F. Fry and Melanie Allen.) Make ‘Em Laugh: Life Studies of Comedy Writers. Ed. William F. Fry and Melanie Allen. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, Inc., 1975. 43–68. Eliot, T. S. “T. S. Eliot.” (Interv. Donald Hall.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 2nd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 89–110. Elkin, Stanley. “An Interview with Stanley Elkin.” (Interv. Scott Sanders.) Contemporary Literature 16 (1975): 131–45. Elkin, Stanley. “Stanley Elkin.” (Interv. Heide Ziegler.) The Radical Imagination and the Liberal Tradition: Interviews with English and American Novelists. Ed. Heide Ziegler and Christopher Bigsby. London: Junction Books, 1982. 93–110. Elkin, Stanley. “Stanley Elkin.” (Interv. Tom LeClair.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983. 106–25. Ellin, Stanley. “Stanley Ellin.” (Interv. Matthew J. Bruccoli.) Conversations with Writers II. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1978. 2–20. Ellis, Bret Easton. “Bret Easton Ellis.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 118–35. Ellison, Ralph. “A Completion of Personality.” (Interv. John Hersey.) The Writer’s Craft. Ed. John Hersey. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1974. 267–82. Ellison, Ralph. “Ralph Ellison.” (Interv. Alfred Chester and Vilma Howard.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 2nd Ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 317–34.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

190 Interview References

Engel, Howard. “Interview with Howard Engel.” (Interv. Diana Cooper-Clark.) Designs of Darkness: Interviews with Detective Novelists. Ed. Diana Cooper-Clark. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State U Popular P, 1983. 103–22. Epstein, Julius J. “Julius J. Epstein: A King of Comedy.” (Interv. Pat McGilligan.) Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Ed. Pat McGilligan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986. 170–95. Erdrich, Louise. “Whatever is Really Yours: An Interview with Louise Erdrich.” (Interv. Joseph Bruchac.) Survival This Way: Interviews with American Indian Poets. Ed. Joseph Bruchac. Tucson: Sun Tracks and U of Arizona P, 1987. 73–86. Etchison, Dennis. “Dennis Etchison.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 50–64. Farmer, Beverley. “Beverley Farmer.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 110–31. Farmer, Penelope. “Penelope Farmer.” (Interv. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way.) British Children’s Authors: Interviews at Home. Ed. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way. Chicago: American Library Association, 1976. 77–84. Faulkner, William. “Interview in U of Virginia ‘College Topics’.” Lion in the Garden: Interviews with William Faulkner. Ed. James B. Meriwether and Michael Millgate. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. 16–18. Faulkner, William. “Interview with Henry Nash Smith.” (Interv. Henry Nash Smith.) Lion in the Garden: Interviews with William Faulkner. Ed. James B. Meriwether and Michael Millgate. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. 28–32. Faulkner, William. “Interview with Loïc Bouvard.” (Interv. Loïc Bouvard.) Lion in the Garden: Interviews with William Faulkner. Ed. James B. Meriwether and Michael Millgate. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. 68–73. Faulkner, William. “Interview with Marshall J. Smith.” (Interv. Marshall J. Smith.) Lion in the Garden: Interviews with William Faulkner. Ed. James B. Meriwether and Michael Millgate. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. 5–15. Faulkner, William. “Interview with Simon Claxton.” (Interv. Simon Claxton.) Lion in the Garden: Interviews with William Faulkner. Ed. James B. Meriwether and Michael Millgate. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. 270–81. Faulkner, William. “Interviews in Japan: Colloquies at Nagano Seminar IV.” Lion in the Garden: Interviews with William Faulkner. Ed. James B. Meriwether and Michael Millgate. New York: Random House, Inc., 1968. 122–35. Faulkner, William. “The Lumber in the Attic.” Writer to Writer: Readings on the Craft of Writing. Ed. Floyd C. Watkins and Karl F. Knight. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. 45–50. Faulkner, William. “William Faulkner.” (Interv. Jean Stein vanden Heuvel.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 119–41. Faust, Irvin. “Irvin Faust.” (Interv. Matthew J. Bruccoli.) Conversations with Writers II. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1978. 46–72.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 191

Federman, Raymond. “Raymond Federman.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983. 126–51. Feiffer, Jules. “Jules Feiffer and Nora Sayre.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, NJ and London: The Scarecrow P, 1989. 103–17. Ferre, Rosario. “Rosario Ferre.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 83–104. Ferrell, Anderson. “Anderson Ferrell.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 232–45. Figes, Eva. “Eva Figes.” (Interv. Alan Burns.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 31–9. Findley, Timothy. “Timothy Findley.” (Interv. Graeme Gibson.) Eleven Canadian Novelists. Ed. Graeme Gibson. Toronto: House of Anansi P Limited, 1973. 115–49. Findley, Timothy. “Timothy Findley: Make Peace With Nature Now.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 1. 49–63. Findley, Timothy. “Timothy Findley: The Marvel of Reality.” (Interv. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan.) In Their Words: Interviews with Fourteen Canadian Writers. Ed. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan. Toronto: Anansi, 1984. 44–54. Finkel, Donald. “Before the Beginning.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 146–52. Fleming, Thomas. “Thomas Fleming.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow P, 1989. 119–31. Flippen, Ruth. “Ruth Flippen: The Relationship of Creativity to Internal and External Reinforcement.” (Interv. William F. Fry and Melanie Allen.) Make ‘Em Laugh: Life Studies of Comedy Writers. Ed. William F. Fry and Melanie Allen. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, Inc., 1975. 69–103. Fornes, Maria Irene. “Maria Irene Fornes.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 154–67. Forster, E. M. “E. M. Foster.” (Interv. P. N. Furbank and F. J. H. Haskell.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 23–35. Fowles, John. “An Interview with John Fowles.” (Interv. James Campbell.) Contemporary Literature 17 (1976): 455–69. Fowles, John. “John Fowles.” (Interv. Christopher Bigsby.) The Radical Imagination and the Liberal Tradition: Interviews with English and American Novelists. Ed. Heide Ziegler and Christopher Bigsby. London: Junction Books, 1982. 111–25. Fowles, John. “John Fowles.” (Interv. John F. Baker.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 50–3.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

192 Interview References

Fowles, John. “The Art of Fiction CIX: John Fowles.” (Interv. James R. Baker.) Paris Review 31.111 (1989): 40–63. Fox, William Price. “William Price Fox.” (Interv. Matthew J. Bruccoli.) Conversations with Writers. Ed. Richard Layman. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1977. 46–80. Frankau, Pamela. “Pamela Frankau.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 237–46. Friebert, Stuart. “Stuart Friebert.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 102–06. Fritz, Jean. “Jean Fritz.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 172–78. Fritz, Jean. “Profile: Jean Fritz.” (Interv. Richard Ammon.) Language Arts 60.3 (1983): 365–69. Frost, Robert. “As Reported on Campus.” (Interv. Patsy McKenna and Alan Gussow.) Interviews with Robert Frost. Ed. Edward Connery Lathem. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. 111–22. Frost, Robert. “On the Eve of a Birthday.” (Interv. Milton Bracker.) Interviews with Robert Frost. Ed. Edward Connery Lathem. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. 275–9. Frost, Robert. “The Craft of Poetry.” (Interv. Kenney Withers, Cleanth Brooks, and Robert Penn.) Interviews with Robert Frost. Ed. Edward Connery Lathem. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. 199–206. Fugard, Athol. “The Art of Theater VII: Athol Fugard.” (Interv. Lloyd Richards.) Paris Review 31.111 (1989): 128–51. Gaines, Ernest J. “Ernest J. Gaines.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 87–99. Gallagher, Tess. “Tess Gallagher.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 154–77. Gallico, Paul. “Paul Gallico.” (Interv. Marcelle Bernstein.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 54–7. Gambaro, Griselda. “Griselda Gambaro.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig with Maria Irene Fornes.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 184–99. Gambaro, Griselda. “Griselda Gamboro.” (Interv. Evelyn Picon Garfield.) Women’s Voices from Latin America: Interviews with Six Contemporary Authors. Ed. Evelyn Picon Garfield. Detroit: Wayne State U P, 1985. 53–71. García Márquez, Gabriel. “Gabriel García Márquez.” (Interv. Rita Guibert.) Seven Voices: Seven Latin American Writers Talk to Rita Guibert. Ed. Rita Guibert. Trans. Frances Partridge. New York: Vintage Books, 1973. 303–37. Gardner, John. “John Gardner.” (Interv. Alan Burns.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 40–50.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 193

Gardner, John. “John Gardner.” (Interv. Joe David Bellamy and Pat Ensworth.) The New Fiction: Interviews with Innovative American Writers. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1974. 169–93. Gardner, John. “John Gardner: The Art of Fiction LXXIII.” (Interv. Paul F. Ferguson, John R. Maier, Frank McConnell, and Sara Matthiessen.) Paris Review 21.75 (1979): 36–74. Gardner, John. “Where Philosophy and Fiction Meet: An Interview with John Gardner.” (Interv. Marshall L. Harvey.) Chicago Review 29.4 (1978): 73–87. Garner, Alan. “Alan Garner.” (Interv. Justin Wintle.) The Pied Pipers: Interviews with the Influential Creators of Children’s Literature. Ed. Justin Wintle and Emma Fisher. London: Paddington P Ltd., 1974. 221–35. Garner, Helen. “Helen Garner.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 132–51. Gass, William. “A Debate: William Gass and John Gardner.” (Interv. Tom LeClair.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983. 20–31. Gass, William. “William Gass.” (Interv. Tom LeClair.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983. 152–76. Gems, Pam. “Pam Gems.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 200–10. Gibbons, Kaye. “Kaye Gibbons.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 65–82. Ginsberg, Allen. “Advice to Youth (with Robert Duncan).” Allen Verbatim: Lectures on Poetry, Politics, Consciousness. Ed. Gordon Ball. New York: McGrawHill Book Company, 1974. 103–30. Ginsberg, Allen. “Allen Ginsberg.” (Interv. Thomas Clark.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 3rd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 279–320. Ginsberg, Allen. “Craft Interview with Allen Ginsberg.” (Interv. Mary Jane Fortunato, Lucille Medwick, and Susan Rowe.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 53–78. Givner, Joan. “Joan Givner.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 211–32. Godfrey, Dave. “Dave Godfrey.” (Interv. Graeme Gibson.) Eleven Canadian Novelists. Ed. Graeme Gibson. Toronto: House of Anansi P Limited, 1973. 151–79. Gold, Herbert. “Herbert Gold.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 111–23. Gold, Herbert. “Interview: Herbert Gold.” (Interv. Stephen J. Thorpe.) California Quarterly 5 (1973): 65–76.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

194 Interview References

Golden, Marita. “Marita Golden.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 83–101. Golding, William. “William Golding.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 97–120. Golding, William. (Interv. Jack I. Biles.) Talk: Conversations with William Golding. Ed. Jack I. Biles. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970. Gordon, Gordon. “Mildred and Gordon Gordon.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 289–96. Gorey, Edward. “Edward Gorey.” (Interv. Robert Dahlin.) Conversations with Writers. Ed. Richard Layman. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1977. 126–54. Goyen, William. “William Goyen: A Poet Telling Stories.” (Interv. Patrick Bennett.) Talking with Texas Writers: Twelve Interviews. Ed. Patrick Bennett. College Station: Texas A and M U P, 1980. 227–47. Goyen, William. “William Goyen: The Art of Fiction LXIII.” (Interv. Robert Phillips.) Paris Review 17.68 (1976): 58–100. Graves, John. “John Graves: A Hard Scrabble World.” (Interv. Patrick Bennett.) Talking with Texas Writers: Twelve Interviews. Ed. Patrick Bennett. College Station: Texas A and M U P, 1980. 63–88. Graves, Robert. “Robert Graves.” (Interv. Peter Buckman and William Fifield.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 45–65. Grenville, Kate. “Kate Grenville.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 152–71. Gunn, Thom. “Thom Gunn.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1981. 35–56. Guthrie, A. B., Jr. “A. B. Gutherie, Jr .” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 128–38. Haley, Alex. “Alex Haley.” (Interv. John F. Baker.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 448–51. Hall, Donald. “Here Where No One Has Ever Been: An Interview with Donald Hall.” (Interv. Gregory FitzGerald and Rodney Parshall.) Falcon 4.7 (1973): 5–16. Hall, Donald. “On the Periphery of Time.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 191–5. Hall, Donald. “Trapping Pterodactyls: An Interview with Donald Hall.” Ohio Review 15.3 (1974): 66–78. Hall, James Baker. “James Baker Hall.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 133–8. Hannah, Barry. “An Interview with Barry Hannah.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 111–25.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 195

Hardwick, Elizabeth. “Elizabeth Hardwick.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow P, 1989. 161–73. Harper, Michael. “Michael Harper.” (Interv. John O’Brien.) Interviews with Black Writers. Ed. John O’Brien. New York: Liveright, 1973. 95–107. Harris, Wilson. “Wilson Harris.” (Interv. Alan Burns.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 51–65. Harrison, Jim. “The Art of Fiction CIV: Jim Harrison.” (Interv. Jim Fergus.) Paris Review 30.107 (1988): 52–97. Hau’ofa, Epeli. “Epeli Hau’ofa Interviewed by Subramani.” (Interv. Subramani.) Landfall 43.1 (1989): 35–51. Hawkes, John. “John Hawkes.” (Interv. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 66–82. Hawkes, John. “John Hawkes.” (Interv. John J. Enck.) The Contemporary Writer: Interviews with Sixteen Novelists and Poets. Ed. L. S. Dembo and C. N. Pondrom. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1972. 3–17. Heaney, Seamus. “Seamus Heaney.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1981. 57–75. Hearon, Shelby. “Shelby Hearon: Time, Sex, and God.” (Interv. Patrick Bennett.) Talking with Texas Writers: Twelve Interviews. Ed. Patrick Bennett. College Station: Texas A and M U P, 1980. 111–34. Heller, Joseph. “Joseph Heller.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. 143–79. Heller, Joseph. “Joseph Heller.” (Interv. Sam Merrill.) The Writer’s Voice: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. Barry G. Golson. New York: Morrow, 1980. 393–417. Hempel, Amy. “Amy Hempel.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988. 28–45. Henderson, Hamish. “Hamish Henderson.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 75–81. Henley, Beth. “Beth Henley.” (Interv. John Griffin Jones.) Mississippi Writers Talking I. Ed. John Griffin Jones. Jackson: U P of Mississippi, 1982. 169–90. Henley, Beth. “Beth Henley.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 211–22. Henry, Buck. “Buck Henry.” (Interv. William Froug.) The Screenwriter Looks at the Screenwriter. Ed. William Froug. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972. 171–96. Herbert, James. “James Herbert.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 94–107. Hey, Phil. “Phil Hey.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 143–6.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

196 Interview References

Highsmith, Patricia. “Patricia Highsmith, An Interview.” (Interv. Ian Hamilton.) New Review 4.41 (1977): 31–6. Hill, Geoffrey. “Geoffrey Hill.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London: Faber and Faber, 1981. 76–99. Hirsch, Edward. “‘Emotional Temperature’: A Conversation with Edward Hirsch.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The PostConfessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 121–34. Hoagland, Edward. “Divergencies: An Interview with Edward Hoagland.” (Interv. T. E. Porter.) Falcon 6.10 (1975): 3–16. Hoban, Russell. “An Interview with Russell Hoban.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 126–50. Hoban, Russell. “Russell Hoban.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 121–44. Hogan, Linda. “To Take Care of Life: An Interview with Linda Hogan.” (Interv. Joseph Bruchac.) Survival This Way: Interviews with American Indian Poets. Ed. Joseph Bruchac. Tucson: Sun Tracks and U of Arizona P, 1987. 119–33. Holden, Jonathan. “‘Thinking of Baseball’: A Conversation with Jonathan Holden.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The PostConfessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 167–81. Hollander, John. “The Candle in the Pitcher.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 196–205. Hopkins, John. “John Hopkins.” (Interv. Giles Gordon.) Behind the Scenes: Theater and Film Interviews from the Transatlantic Review. Ed. Joseph F. McCrindle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 31–43. Howe, Tina. “Tina Howe.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 223–35. Hoyos, Angela de. “Angela de Hoyos.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 109–16. Hoyt, Richard. “Richard Hoyt.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 139–53. Hughes, Richard. “Richard Hughes.” (Interv. Peter Firchow.) The Writer’s Place: Interviews on the Literary Situation in Contemporary Britain. Ed. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1974. 183–208. Hulme, Keri. “Keri Hulme.” (Interv. Harry Ricketts.) Talking About Ourselves: Twelve New Zealand Poets in Conversation with Harry Ricketts. Ed. Harry Ricketts. Wellington, NZ: Mallinson Rendel, 1986. 17–29. Hunter, Evan. “Evan Hunter.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow P, 1989. 175–87.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 197

Hyland, Gary. “Gary Hyland.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 233–50. Ignatow, David. “David Ignatow: The Art of Poetry XIII.” (Interv. Gerard Malanga.) Paris Review 21.76 (1979): 54–99. Ike, Chukwuemeka. “Interview with Chukwuemeka Ike.” (Interv. John Agetua.) Interviews with Six Nigerian Writers. Ed. John Agetua. Benin City: Bendel Newspapers Corporation, 1976. 34–40. Inge, William. “William Inge.” (Interv. Digby Diehl.) Behind the Scenes: Theater and Film Interviews from the Transatlantic Review. Ed. Joseph F. McCrindle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 108–15. Ionesco, Eugene. “Eugene Ionesco.” (Interv. Rosette Lamont.) The Playwrights Speak. Ed. Walter Wager. New York: Delacorte P, 1967. 140–70. Ionesco, Eugene. (Interv. Claude Bonnefoy.) Conversations with Eugene Ionesco. Trans. Jan Dawson. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Irving, John. “Art of Fiction XCIII.” (Interv. Ron Hansen.) Paris Review 28.100 (1986): 74–103. Isherwood, Christopher. “Christopher Isherwood.” (Interv. David W. McCullough.) People, Books and Book People. Ed. David W. McCullough. New York: Harmony, 1981. 87–9. Isherwood, Christopher. “Christopher Isherwood.” (Interv. W. I. Scobie.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 209–42. Isherwood, Christopher. “Interview: Christopher Isherwood.” (Interv. Jeffrey Bailey.) California Quarterly 11–12 (1977): 87–96. Ishiguro, Kazuo. “Interview with Kazuo Ishiguro.” (Interv. Gregory Mason.) Contemporary Literature 30.3 (1989): 335–47. Jacker, Corinne. “Corinne Jacker.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 236–45. James, P. D. “Interview with P. D. James.” (Interv. Diana Cooper-Clark.) Designs of Darkness: Interviews with Detective Novelists. Ed. Diana Cooper-Clark. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State U Popular P, 1983. 15–32. Janowitz, Tama. “Tama Janowitz.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988. 214–31. Johnson, B. S. “B. S. Johnson.” (Interv. Alan Burns.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 83–94. Johnson, Charles. “Charles Johnson.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 248–63. Johnson, Diane. “Diane Johnson.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983. 199–218. Jones, David. “David Jones.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 97–104. Jones, James. “James Jones.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 375–84.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

198 Interview References

Jones, Madison. “An Interview with Madison Jones.” (Interv. William Walsh.) Southern Humanities Review 23.1 (1989): 39–51. Jong, Erica. “Craft Interview with Erica Jong.” (Interv. Jean Balderston, Carol Jennings, and Mary Kathryn Stillwell.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 295–320. Jong, Erica. “Erica Jong.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow Press, 1989. 189–201. Kahn, Roger. “Roger Kahn.” (Interv. Richard Layman.) Conversations with Writers II. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1978. 94–122. Katz, Steve. “Steve Katz.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983. 219–34. Kaufman, Shirley. “Shirley Kaufman.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 155–63. Kelton, Elmer. “Elmer Kelton: Racial Friction Out West.” (Interv. Patrick Bennett.) Talking with Texas Writers: Twelve Interviews. Ed. Patrick Bennett. College Station: Texas A and M U P, 1980. 179–203. Kennedy, Adrienne. “Adrienne Kennedy.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 246–58. Kennedy, William. “An Interview with William Kennedy.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 151–74. Kennedy, X. J. “X. J. Kennedy.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 164–7. Keyes, Frances Parkinson. “Frances Parkinson Keyes.” (Interv. Harvey Breit.) The Writer Observed. Ed. Harvey Breit. London: Alvin Redman Limited, 1957. 151–3. Kincaid, Jamaica. “Jamaica Kincaid.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 127–42. King, Larry L. “Honkies, Editors, and Other Dirty Stories: Larry L. King.” (Interv. John Carr.) Kite-Flying and Other Irrational Acts: Conversations with Twelve Southern Writers. Ed. John Carr. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U P, 1972. 120–48. Kingsolver, Barbara. “Barbara Kingsolver.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 143–70. Kinnell, Galway. “To The Roots: An Interview with Galway Kinnell.” (Interv. James J. McKenzie.) Contemporary Poetry in America: Essays and Interviews. Ed. Robert Boyers. New York: Schocken Books, 1974. 240–55. Kinsella, Thomas. “Thomas Kinsella.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London: Faber and Faber, 1981. 100–13.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 199

Kizer, Carolyn. “Carolyn Kizer.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 95–110. Kumin, Maxine. “Maxine Kumin.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 188–92. Kumin, Maxine. “Settling in Another Field.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 107–12. Kunitz, Stanley. “‘Imagine Wrestling with an Angel’: An Interview with Stanley Kunitz.” (Interv. Robert Boyers.) Contemporary Poetry in America: Essays and Interviews. Ed. Robert Boyers. New York: Schocken Books, 1974. 30–42. Kunitz, Stanley. “An Interview with Stanley Kunitz.” (Interv. Michael Ryan.) Iowa Review 5.2 (1974): 76–85. Kunitz, Stanley. “Craft Interview with Stanley Kunitz.” (Interv. Mary Jane Fortunato, Lucille Medwick, William Packard, and Susan Rowe.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 25–36. Kunitz, Stanley. “Living the Layers of Time.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 113–19. Lafferty, R. A. “R. A. Lafferty.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 11–23. Lathen, Emma. “Emma Lathen.” (Interv. John C. Carr.) The Craft of Crime: Conversations with Crime Writers. Ed. John C. Carr. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983. 176–201. Laughlin, James. “Craft Interview with James Laughlin.” New York Quarterly 38 (1989): 36–53. Laumer, Keith. “Keith Laumer.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 101–06. Laurence, Margaret. “Margaret Laurence.” (Interv. Graeme Gibson.) Eleven Canadian Novelists. Ed. Graeme Gibson. Toronto: House of Anansi P Limited, 1973. 181–208. Laurence, Margaret. “Margaret Laurence: The Black Celt Speaks of Freedom.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 1. 96–115. Lea, Tom. “Tom Lea: The Book as Art.” (Interv. Patrick Bennett.) Talking with Texas Writers: Twelve Interviews. Ed. Patrick Bennett. College Station: Texas A and M U P, 1980. 269–90. Lear, Norman. “Norman Lear: Humor and Its Role in the Process of Creativity and Life.” (Interv. William F. Fry and Melanie Allen.) Make ‘Em Laugh: Life Studies of Comedy Writers. Ed. William F. Fry and Melanie Allen. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, Inc., 1975. 13–41. Lee, Harper. “Harper Lee.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 403–12. Le Guin, Ursula K. “Interview: Ursula K. Le Guin.” (Interv. Dorothy Gilbert.) California Quarterly 13–14 (1978): 39–55.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

200 Interview References

Le Guin, Ursula K. “Ursula K. Le Guin.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 19–38. Le Guin, Ursula K. “Ursula K. Le Guin.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 24–36. Le Guin, Ursula. “An Interview with Ursula Le Guin.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 175–95. Lehmann, John. “John Lehmann.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 111–16. Leigh, James. “James Leigh.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./ William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 125–47. Lemann, Nancy. “Nancy Lemann.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 153–68. L’Engle, Madeleine. “Madeleine L’Engle.” (Interv. Justin Wintle.) The Pied Pipers: Interviews with the Influential Creators of Children’s Literature. Ed. Justin Wintle and Emma Fisher. London: Paddington P Ltd., 1974. 249–62. L’Engle, Madeleine. “Madeleine L’Engle.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 257–67. Leonard, Hugh. “Leonard: Difficult to Say ‘No’.” (Interv. Des Hickey and Gus Smith.) Flight from the Celtic Twilight. Ed. Des Hickey and Gus Smith. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1973. 191–201. Lessing, Doris. “Doris Lessing.” (Interv. Christopher Bigsby.) The Radical Imagination and the Liberal Tradition: Interviews with English and American Novelists. Ed. Heide Ziegler and Christopher Bigsby. London: Junction Books, 1982. 188–208. Lessing, Doris. “Profile 8: Doris Lessing.” (Interv. C. J. Driver.) New Review 1.8 (1974): 17–23. Lessing, Doris. “The Art of Fiction CII: Doris Lessing.” (Interv. Thomas Frick.) Paris Review 30.106 (1988): 80–105. Levertov, Denise. “Craft Interview with Denise Levertov.” (Interv. Susan Rowe.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 79–100. Levertov, Denise. “Denise Levertov.” (Interv. David Ossman.) The Sullen Art: Interviews with Modern American Poets. Ed. David Ossman. New York: Corinth Books, 1963. 73–6. Levi, Peter. “Peter Levi: The Art of Poetry XIV.” (Interv. Jannika Hurwitt.) Paris Review 21.76 (1979): 120–54. Levine, Philip. “The Art of Poetry XXXIX: Philip Levine.” (Interv. Mona Simpson.) Paris Review 30.107 (1988): 156–86. Lewis, Janet. “Janet Lewis.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 149–65.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 201

Liddy, James. “James Liddy.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 117–22. Lipsitz, Lou. “Lou Lipsitz.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 202–04. Lodge, David. “David Lodge.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 145–67. Lopez, Barry. “Barry Lopez.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 3–18. Lord, Gabrielle. “Gabrielle Lord.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 192–211. Lorde, Audre. “An Interview with Audre Lorde.” (Interv. Adrienne Rich.) Signs 6.4 (1981): 713–36. Lorde, Audre. “Audre Lorde.” (Interv. Claudia Tate.) Black Women Writers at Work. New York: Continuum, 1983. 100–16. Lowell, Robert. “Robert Lowell.” (Interv. Frederick Seidel.) Robert Lowell: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Thomas Parkinson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 12–35. Ludwig, Jack. “Jack Ludwig: Sleeping Is a Criminal Activity.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 1. 116–29. MacBeth, George. “George MacBeth.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 131–6. Macdonald, Cynthia. “Cynthia Macdonald.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 205–12. Macdonald, Ross. “Interview with Ross Macdonald.” (Interv. Diana CooperClark.) Designs of Darkness: Interviews with Detective Novelists. Ed. Diana Cooper-Clark. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State U Popular P, 1983. 83–100. Macdonald, Ross. “Ross Macdonald.” (Interv. Barbara A. Bannon.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 207–09. MacEwen, Gwendolyn. “Gwendolyn MacEwen: The Magic of Language.” (Interv. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan.) In Their Words: Interviews with Fourteen Canadian Writers. Ed. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan. Toronto: Anansi, 1984. 96–105. MacInnes, Helen. “Helen MacInnes.” (Interv. John F. Baker.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York and London: R. R. Bowker Co., 1977. 103–06. MacInnes, Helen. “Helen MacInnes.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 457–64. MacLeish, Archibald. “The Art of Poetry XVIII: Archibald MacLeish.” (Interv. Benjamin DeMott.) Paris Review 15.58 (1974): 52–81. MacLennan, Hugh. “Hugh MacLennan: The Tennis Racket Is an Antelope Bone.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 1. 130–48.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

202 Interview References

MacMahon, Bryan. “An Interview with Bryan MacMahon.” (Interv. Gordon Henderson.) Journal of Irish Literature 3.3 (1974): 3–23. MacPherson, Margaret. “Margaret MacPherson.” (Interv. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way.) British Children’s Authors: Interviews at Home. Ed. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way. Chicago: American Library Association, 1976. 121–6. Madden, David. “David Madden.” (Interv. Sanford Pinsker.) Conversations with Contemporary American Writers. Ed. Sanford Pinsker. Costerus. New ser. vol. 50. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1985. 44–54. Madge, Charles. “Charles Madge.” (Interv. Hilary Morrish.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 137–41. Mailer, Norman. “Norman Mailer.” (Interv. Steven Marcus.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 3rd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 251–78. Major, Clarence. “Clarence Major.” (Interv. John O’Brien.) Interviews with Black Writers. Ed. John O’Brien. New York: Liveright, 1973. 125–39. Major, Clarence. “Clarence Major.” (Interv. Nancy L. Bunge.) Finding the Words: Conversations with Writers Who Teach. Ed. Nancy L. Bunge. London: Ohio U P, 1985. 53–67. Malamud, Bernard. “The Art of Fiction LII: Bernard Malamud.” (Interv. Daniel Stern.) Paris Review 16.61 (1975): 41–64. Mallin, Tom. “Tom Mallin.” (Interv. Alan Burns.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 95–103. Manchester, William. “William Manchester.” (Interv. John Graham.) The Writer’s Voice: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. George Garrett. New York: Morrow, 1973. 154–66. Manfred, Frederick. “Frederick Manfred.” (Interv. Nancy L. Bunge.) Finding the Words: Conversations with Writers Who Teach. Ed. Nancy L. Bunge. London: Ohio U P, 1985. 68–82. Manfred, Frederick. (Interv. John R. Milton.) Conversations with Frederick Manfred. Ed. John R. Milton. Salt Lake City: U of Utah P, 1974. Mann, Emily. “Emily Mann.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 274–87. Masters, Olga. “Olga Masters.” (Interv. Jennifer Ellison.) Rooms of Their Own. Ed. Jennifer Ellison. Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books Australia, 1986. 212–29. Matthews, William. “Talking About Poetry with William Matthews.” Ohio Review 13.3 (1972): 32–51. Matthews, William. “William Matthews.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 222–7. Matthiessen, Peter. “An Interview with Peter Matthiessen.” (Interv. Kay Bonetti.) Missouri Review 12.2 (1989): 109–24. Mauriac, François. “ François Mauriac.” (Interv. Jean Le Marchand.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 37–49.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 203

Mazzaro, Jerome. “Jerome Mazzaro.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 228–38. McAlpine, Rachel. “Rachel McAlpine.” (Interv. Harry Ricketts.) Talking About Ourselves: Twelve New Zealand Poets in Conversation with Harry Ricketts. Ed. Harry Ricketts. Wellington, NZ: Mallinson Rendel, 1986. 31–41. McCaffrey, Anne. “Anne McCaffrey.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 253–62. McConkey, James. “James McConkey.” (Interv. David W. McCullough.) People, Books and Book People. Ed. David W. McCullough. New York: Harmony, 1981. 113–14. McCorkle, Jill. “Jill McCorkle.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 129–49. McDowell, Michael. “Michael McDowell.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 177–91. McGuane, Thomas. “An Interview with Thomas McGuane.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 196–221. McInerney, Jay. “Jay McInerney.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 88–111. McKuen, Rod. “Rod McKuen.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow P, 1989. 213–26. McMurtry, Larry. “Larry McMurtry: Thalia, Houston, and Hollywood.” (Interv. Patrick Bennett.) Talking with Texas Writers: Twelve Interviews. Ed. Patrick Bennett. College Station: Texas A and M U P, 1980. 15–36. McPherson, Sandra. “Sandra McPherson.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 213–21. Merriam, Eve. “Eve Merriam.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 288–311. Merrill, Jean. “Jean Merrill.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 272–83. Merwin, W. S. “W. S. Merwin.” (Interv. Ed Folsom and Cary Nelson.) American Poetry Observed. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1984. 168–80. Michener, James A. “James A. Michener.” (Interv. John Hayes.) Conversations with Writers II. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1978. 142–80. Millar, Margaret. “Interview with Margaret Millar.” (Interv. Diana CooperClark.) Designs of Darkness: Interviews with Detective Novelists. Ed. Diana Cooper-Clark. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State U Popular P, 1983. 67–81.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

204 Interview References

Miller, Arthur. “Arthur Miller.” (Interv. Walter Wager.) The Playwrights Speak. Ed. Walter Wager. New York: Delacorte P, 1967. 1–24. Miller, Arthur. “Sex, Theatre, and the Intellectual: A Conversation with Marilyn Monroe and Arthur Miller.” (Interv. Henry Brandon.) Conversations with Henry Brandon. Ed. Henry Brandon. London: Andre Deutsch, 1966. 182–213. Miller, Henry. “Henry Miller.” (Interv. George Wickes.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 2nd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 165–91. Minty, Judith. “Judith Minty.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 242–8. Mistry, Rohinton. “An Interview with Rohinton Mistry.” (Interv. Geoffrey Hancock.) Canadian Fiction Magazine 65 (1989): 143–50. Mitchell, W. O. “W. O. Mitchell: Sea Caves and Creative Partners.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 2. 48–63. Molina, Silvia. “Silvia Molina.” (Interv. Kay S. García.) Broken Bars: New Perspectives from Mexican Women Writers. Ed. Kay S. García. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P, 1994. 113–29. Momaday, N. Scott. “N. Scott Momaday.” (Interv. Charles L. Woodard.) Ancestral Voice: Conversations with N. Scott Momaday. Lincoln, Nebraska: U of Nebraska P, 1989. Montoya, José. “José Montoya.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 117–35. Moore, Lorrie. “Lorrie Moore.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 136–52. Moravia, Alberto. “Alberto Moravia.” (Interv. Anna Maria de Dominicis and Ben Johnson.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 209–29. Morgan, Edwin. “Edwin Morgan: An Interview.” (Interv. Marshall Walker.) Akros 11.32 (1976): 3–23. Morgan, Murray. “Murray Morgan.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 285–95. Morgan, Robert. “‘The Rush of Language’: A Conversation with Robert Morgan.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and William Heyen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 197–209. Morrell, David. “David Morrell.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 79–93. Morrison, Toni. “Toni Morrison.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. 215–43. Mortimer, John. “The Art of Fiction CVI: John Mortimer.” (Interv. Rosemary Herbert.) Paris Review 30.109 (1989): 96–128.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 205

Moss, Howard. “Craft Interview with Howard Moss.” (Interv. Mary Jane Fortunato and Layle Silbert.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 265–93. Mueller, Lisel. “‘The Steady Interior Hum’: A Conversation with Lisel Mueller.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and William Heyen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1989. 65–72. Muldoon, Paul. “Paul Muldoon.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1981. 130–42. Munro, Alice. “Alice Munro.” (Interv. Graeme Gibson.) Eleven Canadian Novelists. Ed. Graeme Gibson. Toronto: House of Anansi P Limited, 1973. 237–64. Murdoch, Iris. “Iris Murdoch.” (Interv. Christopher Bigsby.) The Radical Imagination and the Liberal Tradition: Interviews with English and American Novelists. Ed. Heide Ziegler and Christopher Bigsby. London: Junction Books, 1982. 209–30. Murdoch, Iris. “Iris Murdoch.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 191–209. Myers, Martin. “Martin Myers: A Wobble in the Lens.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 2. 86–98. Nabokov, Vladimir. “Vladimir Nabokov.” (Interv. Alfred Appel, Jr.) The Contemporary Writer: Interviews with Sixteen Novelists and Poets. Ed. L. S. Dembo and C. N. Pondrom. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1972. 35–60. Nabokov, Vladimir. “Vladimir Nabokov.” (Interv. Alvin Toffler.) The Writer’s Voice: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. Barry G. Golson. New York: Morrow, 1980. 61–75. Nabokov, Vladimir. “Vladimir Nabokov.” (Interv. Herbert Gold.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 91–107. Naylor, Gloria. “Gloria Naylor.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 217–44. Ni Dhuibhne, Eilis. “Eilis Ni Dhuibhne.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 245–60. Nichols, John. “Armed Visions: John Nichols.” (Interv. John Sullivan and Ray Gonzalez.) Living in Words: Interviews from The Bloomsbury Review 1981–1988. Ed. Gregory McNamee. Portland, OR: Breitenbush Books, 1988. 125–42. Nicholson, Norman. “Norman Nicholson.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 155–60. Nin, Anaïs. (Interv. Duane Schneider.) An Interview with Anaïs Nin. Ed. Duane Schneider. Athens, OH: The Duane Schneider P, Inc., 1970. Nin, Anaïs. ‘’Anaïs Nin.’’ A Woman Speaks: The Lectures, Seminars, and Interviews of Anaïs Nin. Ed. Evelyn J. Hinz. Chicago: The Swallow Press Inc., 1975.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

206 Interview References

Norton, Andre. “Andre Norton.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 263–70. Oates, Joyce Carol. “Joyce Carol Oates.” (Interv. Joe David Bellamy.) The New Fiction: Interviews with Innovative American Writers. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1974. 19–31. Oates, Joyce Carol. “Joyce Carol Oates.” (Interv. Sanford Pinsker.) Conversations with Contemporary American Writers. Ed. Sanford Pinsker. Costerus. New ser. vol. 50. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1985. 36–42. Oates, Joyce Carol. “Joyce Carol Oates: The Art of Fiction LXXII.” (Interv. Robert Phillips.) Paris Review 20.74 (1978): 198–226. O’Brien, Tim. “Tim O’Brien.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery.) Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Ed. Tom LeClair and Larry McCaffery. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983. 262–78. O’Connor, Flannery. “An Interview with Flannery O’Connor and Robert Penn Warren.” (Interv. Cyrus Hoy and Walter Sullivan.) Writer to Writer: Readings on the Craft of Writing. Ed. Floyd C. Watkins and Karl F. Knight. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. 71–90. O’Connor, Frank. “Frank O’Connor.” (Interv. Anthony Whittier.) Writers at Work: Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 161–82. Okara, Gabriel. “Interview with Gabriel Okara.” (Interv. Bernth Lindfors.) DemSay: Interviews with Eight Nigerian Writers. Ed. Bernth Lindfors. Austin, TX: African and Afro-American Studies and Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin, 1974. 41–7. Okigbo, Christopher. “Christopher Okigbo.” (Interv. Lewis Nkosi.) African Writers Talking: A Collection of Radio Interviews. Ed. Dennis Duerden and Cosmo Pieterse. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1972. 133–8. Omotoso, Kole. “Interview with Kole Omotoso.” (Interv. Bernth Lindfors.) DemSay: Interviews with Eight Nigerian Writers. Ed. Bernth Lindfors. Austin, TX: African and Afro-American Studies and Research Center, The U of Texas at Austin, 1974. 48–56. Orr, Gregory. “‘Longing for the Unconditional’: A Conversation with Gregory Orr.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and William Heyen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 97–107. Orton, Joe. “Joe Orton.” (Interv. Giles Gordon.) Behind the Scenes: Theater and Film Interviews from the Transatlantic Review. Ed. Joseph F. McCrinddle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 116–24. Owens, Rochelle. “Rochelle Owens.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: William Morrow, 1987. 343–52. Paley, Grace. “Grace Paley.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 159–73. Pastan, Linda. “‘Whatever Is At Hand’: A Conversation with Linda Pastan.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 207

Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 135–49. Pastan, Linda. “Linda Pastan.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 249–51. Pastan, Linda. “Unbreakable Codes.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 158–63. Paulin, Tom. “Tom Paulin.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1981. 157–73. Paz, Octavio. “Octavio Paz.” (Interv. Rita Guibert.) Seven Voices: Seven Latin American Writers Talk to Rita Guibert. Ed. Rita Guibert. Trans. Frances Partridge. New York: Vintage Books, 1973. 181–275. Perry, Anne. “Interview with Anne Perry.” (Interv. Diana Cooper-Clark.) Designs of Darkness: Interviews with Detective Novelists. Ed. Diana Cooper-Clark. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State U Popular P, 1983. 205–23. Perry, Elaine. “Elaine Perry.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 174–94. Petrakis, Harry Mark. “The Song of the Thrush: An Interview with Harry Mark Petrakis.” (Interv. Bernard F. Rogers, Jr.) Chicago Review 28.3 (1977): 97–119. Petry, Ann. “Ann Petry.” (Interv. John O’Brien.) Interviews with Black Writers. Ed. John O’Brien. New York: Liveright, 1973. 153–63. Phillips, Jayne Anne. “Jayne Anne Phillips.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 69–87. Picard, Barbara Leonie. “Barbara Leonie Picard.” (Interv. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way.) British Children’s Authors: Interviews at Home. Ed. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way. Chicago: American Library Association, 1976. 137–45. Pinter, Harold. “Harold Pinter.” (Interv. Lawrence M. Bensky.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 3rd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 347–68. Pinter, Harold. ‘’Harold Pinter.’’ (Interv. David W. McCullough.) People, Books and Book People. Ed. David W. McCullough. New York: Harmony, 1981. 136–137. Pitter, Ruth. “Ruth Pitter.” (Interv. Hilary Morrish.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 161–6. Plain, Belva. “Belva Plain.” (Interv. Ralph D. Gardner.) Writers Talk to Ralph D. Gardner. Ed. Ralph D. Gardner. Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow P, 1989. 237–56. Plumly, Stanley. “‘The Why of the World’: A Conversation with Stanley Plumly.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 73–83. Pollitt, Katha. “‘Passionate Midnights in the Museum Basement’: A Conversation with Katha Pollitt.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

208 Interview References

Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 225–34. Poniatowska, Elena. “Elena Poniatowski.” (Interv. Kay S. García.) Broken Bars: New Perspectives from Mexican Women Writers. Ed. Kay S. García. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P, 1994. 19–31. Porter, Katherine Anne. “Katherine Anne Porter.” (Interv. Barbara Thompson.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 2nd ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 137–63. Portillo, Estela. “Estela Portillo.” (Interv. Bruce-Novoa.) Chicano Authors: Inquiry by Interview. Ed. Bruce-Novoa. Austin and London: U of Texas P, 1980. 163–81. Potok, Chaim. “A Conversation with Chaim Potok.” (Interv. Harold U. Ribalow.) The Tie that Binds. Ed. Harold U. Ribalow. San Diego: A. S. Barnes and Company, Inc., 1980. 111–37. Powell, Anthony. “Anthony Powell: The Art of Fiction LXVIII.” (Interv. Michael Barber.) Paris Review 20.73 (1978): 45–79. Press, John. “John Press.” (Interv. Hilary Morrish.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 185–90. Price, Reynolds. “Notice, I’m Still Smiling: Reynolds Price.” (Interv. Wallace Kaufman.) Kite-Flying and Other Irrational Acts: Conversations with Twelve Southern Writers. Ed. John Carr. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U P, 1972. 70–95. Prytz, Carl Frederik. “Carl Federik Prytz.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 191–4. Queen, Ellery. “Ellery Queen.” (Interv. Barbara A. Bannon.) The Author Speaks. Ed. Publishers Weekly Editors and Contributors. New York: R. R. Bowker, 1977. 210–13. Raine, Craig. “Craig Raine.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Viewpoints: Poets in Conversation with John Haffenden. Ed. John Haffenden. London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1981. 174–85. Reaney, James. “James Reaney.” Stage Voices: Twelve Canadian Playwrights Talk About Their Lives and Work. Ed. Geraldine Anthony. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1978. 139–64. Rechy, John. “An Interview with John Rechy.” (Interv. James R. Giles and Wanda Giles.) Chicago Review 25.1 (1973): 19–31. Reiner, Carl. “Carl Reiner.” (Interv. Larry Wilde.) How the Great Comedy Writers Create Laughter. Ed. Larry Wilde. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1976. 215–43. Reiss, James. “James Reiss.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 261–7. Rendell, Ruth. “Ruth Rendell.” (Interv. John C. Carr.) The Craft of Crime: Conversations with Crime Writers. Ed. John C. Carr. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983. 227–57. Revard, Carter. “Something That Stays Alive: An Interview with Carter Revard.” (Interv. Joseph Bruchac.) Survival This Way: Interviews with American Indian Poets. Ed. Joseph Bruchac. Tucson: Sun Tracks and U of Arizona P, 1987. 231–48. Rexroth, Kenneth. “Kenneth Rexroth.” (Interv. Cyrena Pondrom.) The Contemporary Writer. Ed. L. S. Dembo and C. N. Pondrom. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1972. 153–71.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 209

Rich, Adrienne. “Talking with Adrienne Rich.” (Interv. Stanley Plumly, Wayne Dodd, and Walter Tevis.) Ohio Review 13.1 (1971): 28–46. Richler, Mordecai. “Mordecai Richler: The Reticent Moralist.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 2. 114–27. Ringwood, Gwen Pharis. “Gwen Pharis Ringwood.” Stage Voices: Twelve Canadian Playwrights Talk About Their Lives and Work. Ed. Geraldine Anthony. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1978. 85–110. Rinkoff, Barbara. “Barbara Rinkoff.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 288–93. Robbins, Tom. “An Interview with Tom Robbins.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 222–39. Robinson, Casey. “Casey Robinson: Master Adapter.” (Interv. Joel Greenberg.) Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Ed. Pat McGilligan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1986. 290–310. Robinson, Marilynne. “Marilynne Robinson.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 220–30. Robinson, Marilynne. “Marilynne Robinson.” (Interv. Sanford Pinsker.) Conversations with Contemporary American Writers. Ed. Sanford Pinsker. Costerus. New ser. vol. 50. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1985. 118–27. Rodgers, W. R. “W. R. Rodgers.” (Interv. John P.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 207–12. Roe, Sue. “Women Talking About Writing: Sue Roe and Emma Tennant.” (Interv. Emma Tennant with Moira Monteith.) Talking Poetics from the Naropa Institute. Ed. Anne Waldman and Marilyn Webb. Vol. 2. Boulder and London: Shambala, 1979. Rosten, Leo. “Leo Rosten.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 521–36. Roth, Philip. “Philip Roth in Conversation with Joyce Carol Oates.” (Interv. Joyce Carol Oates.) New Review 2.14 (1975): 3–7. Rothenberg, Jerome. “Craft Interview with Jerome Rothenberg.” (Interv. Mary Jane Fortunato.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 37–51. Rothenberg, Jerome. “Jerome Rothenberg.” (Interv. David Ossman.) The Sullen Art: Interviews with Modern American Poets. Ed. David Ossman. New York: Corinth Books, 1963. 27–32. Roy, Gabrielle. “Gabrielle Roy: A Bird in the Prison Window.” (Interv. Donald Cameron.) Conversations with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Donald Cameron. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. Part 2. 128–45. Rukeyser, Muriel. “Craft Interview with Muriel Rukeyser.” (Interv. Cornelia P. Draves and Mary Jane Fortunato.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 153–76. Rushdie, Salman. “Salman Rushdie.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 231–61.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

210 Interview References

Ryan, Alan. “Alan Ryan.” (Interv. Douglas E. Winter.) Faces of Fear: Encounters with the Creators of Modern Horror. Ed. Douglas E. Winter. NY: Berkley Books, 1985. 136–49. Sagel, Jim. “Jim Sagel.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 136–46. Sansom, William. “William Sansom.” (Interv. Peter Firchow.) The Writer’s Place: Interviews on the Literary Situation in Contemporary Britain. Ed. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1974. 285–93. Sapergia, Barbara. “Barbara Sapergia.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 127–43. Sarton, May. “May Sarton.” (Interv. Karla Hammond.) American Poetry Observed. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1984. 198–206. Scaife, C. H. O. “C. H. O. Scaife.” (Interv. Ian Scott-Kilvert.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 213–18. Scannell, Vernon. “Vernon Scannell.” (Interv. Hilary Morrish.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 219–24. Scannell, Vernon. “Vernon Scannell.” (Interv. Phillip Hay and Angharad WynnJones.) Three Poets Two Children. Ed. Desmond Badham-Thornhill. Gloucester, England: Thornhill P, 1975. 35–59. Schmitz, Dennis. “Dennis Schmitz.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 268–72. Schmitz, James. “James Schmitz.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 85–100. Schultz, John. “A Conversation with John Schultz.” (Interv. Linda Shell Bergmann and Margaret Yntema.) Chicago Review 28.3 (1977): 187–200. Schultz, Philip. “‘Embattled Celebration’: A Conversation with Philip Schultz.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Judith Kitchen.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 183–95. Scott, Allan. “Allan Scott: A Nice Life.” (Interv. Pat McGilligan.) Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Ed. Pat McGilligan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1986. 311–33. Sebestyen, Ouida. “Ouida Sebestyen.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 233–52. Seferis, George. “George Seferis.” (Interv. Edmund Keeley.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 147–78. Sexton, Anne. “Anne Sexton.” (Interv. Barbara Kevles.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 397–424. Sexton, Anne. “Craft Interview with Anne Sexton.” (Interv. William Packard and Thomas Victor.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 19–23.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 211

Shange, Ntozake. “Ntozake Shange.” (Interv. Claudia Tate.) Black Women Writers at Work. Ed. Claudia Tate. New York: Continuum, 1983. 149–74. Shange, Ntozake. “Ntozake Shange.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 365–76. Sharp, Margery. “Margery Sharp.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 537–42. Shelton, Richard. “Richard Shelton.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 273–7. Shotwell, Louisa. “Louisa Shotwell.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 308–12. Silkin, Jon. “Jon Silkin.” (Interv. Mike Davies.) Conversations. Ed. Mike Davies. Birmingham: U of Birmingham, Flat Earth P, 1975. 23–33. Silko, Leslie Marmon. “Leslie Marmon Silko.” (Interv. Donna Perry.) Backtalk: Women Writers Speak Out. Ed. Donna Perry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 313–40. Silliman, Ron. “An Interview with Ron Silliman.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1987. 240–56. Sillitoe, Alan. “Alan Sillitoe.” (Interv. Alan Burns.) The Imagination on Trial: British and American Writers Discuss Their Working Methods. Ed. Alan Burns and Charles Sugnet. New York: Allison and Busby, 1981. 149–60. Silverberg, Robert. “Robert Silverberg.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 281–90. Simenon, Georges. “Georges Simenon.” (Interv. Carvel Collins.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 143–60. Simic, Charles. “Charles Simic.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 278–81. Simmie, Lois. “Lois Simmie.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 1–20. Simon, Neil. “Neil Simon.” (Interv. Larry Wilde.) How the Great Comedy Writers Create Laughter. Ed. Larry Wilde. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1976. 245–70. Simpson, Louis. “Louis Simpson.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 282–9. Simpson, Mona. “Mona Simpson.” (Interv. Michael Schumacher.) Reasons to Believe: New Voices in American Fiction. Ed. Michael Schumacher. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1988. 199–213. Singer, I[saac]. B[ashevis]. “Stewed Prunes and Rice Pudding: College Students Eat and Talk with I. B. Singer.” (Interv. Grace Farrell Lee.) Contemporary Literature 19.4 (1978): 446–58. Singer, Isaac Bashevis. “A Conversation with Isaac Bashevis Singer.” (Interv. Harold U. Ribalow.) The Tie that Binds. Ed. Harold U. Ribalow. San Diego: A. S. Barnes and Company, Inc., 1980. 165–98.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

212 Interview References

Smith, Mark. “Mark Smith.” (Interv. John C. Carr.) The Craft of Crime: Conversations with Crime Writers. Ed. John C. Carr. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983. 322–49. Smith, Stevie. “Stevie Smith.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 225–31. Snyder, Gary. “An Interview with Gary Snyder.” (Interv. Paul Geneson.) Ohio Review 18.3 (1977): 67–105. Snyder, Gary. “Craft Interview with Gary Snyder.” New York Quarterly 22 (1978): 13–27. Snyder, Gary. “The Real Work (Excerpts from an Interview).” (Interv. Paul Geneson.) The Poet’s Work: Twenty Nine Masters of Twentieth Century Poetry on the Origins and Practice of Their Art. Ed. Reginald Gibbons. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979. 283–94. Somers, Armonía. “Armonía Somers.” (Interv. Evelyn Picon Garfield.) Women’s Voices from Latin America: Interviews with Six Contemporary Authors. Ed. Evelyn Picon Garfield. Detroit: Wayne State U P, 1985. 29–51. Sontag, Susan. “Susan Sontag.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. 180–96. Speare, Elizabeth George. “Elizabeth George Speare.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 330–5. Spencer, Bernard. “Bernard Spencer.” (Interv. Peter Orr.) The Poet Speaks. Ed. Peter Orr. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966. 233–7. Spencer, Elizabeth. “Elizabeth Spencer.” (Interv. John Griffin Jones.) Mississippi Writers Talking I. Ed. John Griffin Jones. Jackson: U P of Mississippi, 1982. 95–129. Spencer, Elizabeth. “The Art of Fiction CX: Elizabeth Spencer.” (Interv. Robert Phillips.) Paris Review 31.111 (1989): 184–213. Stafford, William. “Dreams to Have: An Interview with William Stafford.” (Interv. Cynthia Lofsness.) Iowa Review 3.3 (1972): 92–106. Stafford, William. “The Art of Writing: An Interview with William Stafford.” (Interv. David M. Cicotello.) College Composition and Communication 34 (1983): 173–7. Stafford, William. “William Stafford.” (Interv. Dave Smith.) American Poetry Observed. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1984. 231–7. Stafford, William. “William Stafford.” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 231–47. Stafford, William. “William Stafford.” (Interv. Sanford Pinsker.) Conversations with Contemporary American Writers. Ed. Sanford Pinsker. Costerus. New ser. vol. 50. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1985. 128–38. Stanford, Frank. “Frank Stanford.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 296–304. Stegner, Wallace. “Wallace Stegner.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./ William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 167–79.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 213

Stegner, Wallace. “Wallace Stegner.” (Interv. Nancy L. Bunge.) Finding the Words: Conversations with Writers Who Teach. Ed. Nancy L. Bunge. London: Ohio U P, 1985. 118–27. Steinbeck, John. “John Steinbeck.” (Interv. George Plimpton and Frank Crowther.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 179–207. Stern, Gerald. “An Interview with Gerald Stern.” (Interv. David Hamilton.) Iowa Review 19.2 (1982): 32–65. Stern, Richard G. “An Interview with Richard G. Stern.” (Interv. Robert L. Raeder.) Chicago Review 18.3 & 4 (1966): 170–5. Stewart, Mary. “Mary Stewart.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 561–71. Stolz, Mary. “Mary Stolz.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 343–51. Stone, Ruth. “Interview: Ruth Stone.” (Interv. Sandra M. Gilbert.) California Quarterly 10 (1975): 55–70. Stoppard, Tom. “Profile 9: Tom Stoppard.” (Interv. Ronald Hayman.) New Review 1.9 (1974): 15–22. Stoppard, Tom. “The Art of Theater VII: Tom Stoppard.” (Interv. Shusha Guppy.) Paris Review 30.109 (1988): 26–51. Storey, David. “David Storey.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 262–80. Storey, David. “David Storey.” (Interv. Ronald Hayman.) Playback. Ed. Ronald Hayman. London: Davis-Poynter Ltd., 1973. 7–20. Strand, Mark. “Untelling the Hour.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1983. 13–18. Stryk, Lucien. “The Zen Aesthetic: An Interview with Lucien Stryk, Poet and Translator.” (Interv. John Somer.) Chicago Review 25.3 (1973): 62–72. Styron, William. “William Styron.” (Interv. John Baker.) Conversations with Writers II. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1978. 256–82. Styron, William. “William Styron.” (Interv. Peter Mathiessen and George Plimpton.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 267–82. Suknaski, Andrew. “Andrew Suknaski.” (Interv. Doris Hillis.) Plainspeaking: Interviews with Saskatchewan Writers. Ed. Doris Hillis. Regina, Sask: Coteau Books, 1988. 105–25. Sutcliff, Rosemary. “Rosemary Sutcliff.” (Interv. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way.) British Children’s Authors: Interviews at Home. Ed. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way. Chicago: American Library Association, 1976. 146–53. Sutcliff, Rosemary. “Rosemary Sutcliff.” (Interv. Emma Fisher.) The Pied Pipers: Interviews with the Influential Creators of Children’s Literature. Ed. Justin Wintle and Emma Fisher. London: Paddington P Ltd., 1974. 182–91. Swenson, May. “Craft Interview with May Swenson.” New York Quarterly 19 (1977): 14–28. Swift, Joan. “Joan Swift.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 305–14.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

214 Interview References

Tate, James. “James Tate.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 315–21. Tate, James. “James Tate.” (Interv. Helen Minton, Louis Papineau, Cliff Saunders, and Karen Florsheim.) American Poetry Observed. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1984. 248–65. Tennant, Emma. “Emma Tennant.” (Interv. John Haffenden.) Novelists in Interview. Ed. John Haffenden. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 281–304. Tennant, Emma. “Women Talking About Writing: Sue Roe and Emma Tennant.” (Interv. Sue Roe with Moira Monteith.) Talking Poetics from the Naropa Institute. Ed. Anne Waldman and Marilyn Webb. Vol. 2. Boulder and London: Shambala, 1979. Terry, Megan. “Megan Terry.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 377–401. Theroux, Paul. “Paul Theroux.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984. 244–64. Thomas, D. M. “The Grass Captain.” (Interv. Jo Brans.) Listen to the Voices: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. Jo Brans. Dallas: Southern Methodist U P, 1988. 103–23. Tomlinson, Charles. “An Interview with Charles Tomlinson.” (Interv. Jed Rasula and Mike Erwin.) Contemporary Literature 16.4 (1975): 405–16. Traba, Marta. “Marta Traba.” (Interv. Evelyn Picon Garfield.) Women’s Voices from Latin America: Interviews with Six Contemporary Authors. Ed. Evelyn Picon Garfield. Detroit: Wayne State U P, 1985. 115–40. Trevor, William. “The Art of Fiction CVIII: William Trevor.” (Interv. Mira Stout.) Paris Review 31.110 (1989): 118–51. Updike, John. “John Updike.” (Interv. Charles Thomas Samuels.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 425–54. Valentine, Jean. “The Hallowing of the Everyday.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1983. 27–31. Valenzuela, Luisa. “Luisa Valenzuela.” (Interv. Evelyn Picon Garfield.) Women’s Voices from Latin America: Interviews with Six Contemporary Authors. Ed. Evelyn Picon Garfield. Detroit: Wayne State U P, 1985. 141–65. Van Der Post, Larens. “Larens Van Der Post.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 613–24. Vidal, Gore. “Gore Vidal.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. 57–79. Vidal, Gore. “Gore Vidal.” (Interv. Eugene Walter.) Behind the Scenes: Theater and Film Interviews from the Transatlantic Review. Ed. Joseph F. McCrindle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 327–41. Vidal, Gore. “Gore Vidal: The Art of Fiction L.” (Interv. Gerald Clarke.) Paris Review 15.59 (1974): 130–65. Vidal, Gore. Views from a Window: Conversations with Gore Vidal. Ed. Robert J. Stanton and Gore Vidal. Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart Inc., 1980.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 215

Villanueva, Tino. “Tino Villanueva.” (Interv. Wolfgang Binder.) Partial Autobiographies: Interviews with Twenty Chicano Poets. Ed. Wolfgang Binder. Erlangen: Verlag Palm and Enke, 1985. 203–20. Wagoner, David. “David Wagoner .” (Interv. Nicholas O’Connell.) At the Field’s End: Interviews with Twenty Pacific Northwest Writers. Ed. Nicholas O’Connell. Seattle: Madrona Publishers, 1987. 39–57. Waldman, Anne. “My Life a List.” Talking Poetics from Naropa Institute: Annals of the Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics. Ed. Anne Waldman and Marilyn Webb. Vol. 2. Boulder, Colo.: Shambhala, 1979. 293–322. Walker, Alice. “Alice Walker.” (Interv. John O’Brien.) Interviews with Black Writers. Ed. John O’Brien. New York: Liveright, 1973. 185–211. Wallace, Robert. “Robert Wallace.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 322–6. Warren, Robert Penn. “An Interview with Flannery O’Connor and Robert Penn Warren.” (Interv. Cyrus Hoy and Walter Sullivan.) Writer to Writer: Readings on the Craft of Writing. Ed. Floyd C. Watkins and Karl F. Knight. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. 71–90. Warren, Robert Penn. “Craft Interview with Robert Penn Warren.” New York Quarterly 23 (1978): 13–25. Warren, Robert Penn. “On the Horizon of Time.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 53–60. Warren, Robert Penn. “Robert Penn Warren.” (Interv. Frank Gado.) First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing. Ed. Frank Gado. Schenectady, NY: Union College Press, 1973. 63–79. Warren, Robert Penn. “Robert Penn Warren.” (Interv. Ralph Ellison and Eugene Walter.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. Malcolm Cowley. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 183–207. Waters, Michael. “‘A Poet of Eyesight’: A Conversation with Michael Waters.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and Gregory Fitz Gerald.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 235–48. Watson, Sheila. “Sheila Watson: It’s What You Say.” (Interv. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan.) In Their Words: Interviews with Fourteen Canadian Writers. Ed. Bruce Meyer and Brian O’Riordan. Toronto: Anansi, 1984. 156–67. Weidman, Jerome. “Jerome Weidman.” (Interv. Roy Newquist.) Counterpoint. Ed. Roy Newquist. New York: Rand McNally, 1964. 625–34. Weik, Mary Hays. “Mary Hays Weik.” (Interv. Lee Bennett Hopkins.) More Books by More People: Interviews with Sixty-five Authors of Books for Children. Ed. Lee Bennett Hopkins. New York: Citation P, 1974. 363–8. Weiss, Theodore. “Theodore Weiss.” (Interv. Nancy L. Bunge.) Finding the Words: Conversations with Writers Who Teach. Ed. Nancy L. Bunge. London: Ohio U P, 1985. 157–70. Welch, Lew. “Lew Welch.” (Interv. David Meltzer.) Golden Gate: Interviews with Five San Francisco Poets. Ed. David Meltzer. Berkeley, CA: Wingbow P, 1976. 155–93. Welty, Eudora. “‘The Interior World’: An Interview with Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Charles T. Bunting.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 43–69.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

216 Interview References

Welty, Eudora. “A Conversation with Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Joanna Maclay.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 299–319. Welty, Eudora. “A Conversation with Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Martha van Noppen.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 263–80. Welty, Eudora. “A Conversation with Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Tom Royals and John Little.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 281–98. Welty, Eudora. “A Visit with Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Bill Ferris.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square Press, 1985. 171–90. Welty, Eudora. “An Interview with Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Jan Nordby Gretlund.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square Press, 1985. 235–55. Welty, Eudora. “Creators on Creating: Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Scot Haller.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 344–52. Welty, Eudora. “Eudora Welty in Type and Person.” (Interv. Reynolds Price.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 256–62. Welty, Eudora. “Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. 3–17. Welty, Eudora. “Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Jean Todd Freeman.) Conversations with Writers II. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1978. 284–316. Welty, Eudora. “Eudora Welty.” (Interv. John Griffin Jones.) Mississippi Writers Talking I. Ed. John Griffin Jones. Jackson: U P of Mississippi, 1982. 3–35. Welty, Eudora. “Eudora Welty.” (Interv. Linda Kuehl.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 4th ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 271–92. Welty, Eudora. “Eudora Welty: ‘I Worry Over My Stories’.” (Interv. Don Lee Keith.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 156–70. Welty, Eudora. “Eudora Welty’s South Disdains Air Conditioning.” (Interv. Raad Cawthon.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 383–9. Welty, Eudora. “Struggling against the Plaid.” (Interv. Jo Brans.) Listen to the Voices: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. Jo Brans. Dallas: Southern Methodist U P, 1988. 57–76. Welty, Eudora. “The Artist and The Critic.” (Interv. Millsaps College Symposium.) Conversations with Eudora Welty. Ed. Peggy Whitman Prenshaw. New York: Washington Square P, 1985. 5–18. Wersba, Barbara. “Barbara Wersba.” (Interv. Paul Janeczko.) From Writers to Students: The Pleasures and Pains of Writing. Ed. M. Jerry Weiss. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1979. 89–97. Wescott, Glenway. “Glenway Wescott.” (Interv. Frank Gado.) First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing. Ed. Frank Gado. Schenectady, NY: Union College P, 1973. 3–30.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 217

West, Jessamyn. “Jessamyn West.” (Interv. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins.) Fiction! Interviews with Northern California Novelists. Ed. Dan Tooker and Roger Hofheins. New York and Los Altos, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc./ William Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 181–91. Whalen, Philip. “Tiger Whiskers: Interview with Anne Waldman.” (Interv. Anne Waldman.) Off the Wall: Interviews with Philip Whalen. Ed. Donald Allen. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1978. 5–37. Wheelock, John Hall. “John Hall Wheelock: The Art of Poetry XXI.” (Interv. William Cahill and Molly McKaughan.) Paris Review 17.67 (1976): 156–72. White, E. B. “E. B. White: The Art of the Essay I.” (Interv. George A. Plimpton and Franklin H. Crowther.) Paris Review 12.48 (1969): 65–88. White, Edmund. “Edmund White.” (Interv. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory.) Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Ed. Larry McCaffery and Sinda Gregory. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987. 257–74. White, Edmund. “The Art of Fiction CV: Edmund White.” (Interv. Jordan Elgrably.) Paris Review 30.108 (1988): 46–80. Wier, Dara. “The Languages of Illusion.” (Interv. Richard Jackson.) Acts of Mind. Ed. Richard Jackson. University, AL: U of Alabama P, 1983. 132–9. Wilbur, Richard. “Craft Interview with Richard Wilbur.” (Interv. John Briggs and Michael Newman.) The Craft of Poetry: Interviews from the New York Quarterly. Ed. William Packard. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1974. 177–94. Wilbur, Richard. “Richard Wilbur.” (Interv. Alberta T. Turner.) Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. Ed. Alberta T. Turner. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. 327–38. Wilbur, Richard. “Richard Wilbur.” (Interv. David Dillon.) American Poetry Observed. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1984. 285–95. Wilbur, Richard. “Richard Wilbur: The Art of Poetry.” (Interv. Ellesa Clay High and Helen McCloy Ellison.) Paris Review 19.72 (1977): 69–105. Wilbur, Richard. “The Window of Art: A Conversation with Richard Wilbur.” (Interv. Philip L. Gerber and Robert J. Gemmett.) Modern Poetry Studies 1 (1970): 56–67. Wilkinson, Sylvia. “Sylvia Wilkinson.” (Interv. John Graham.) The Writer’s Voice: Conversations with Contemporary Writers. Ed. George Garrett. New York: Morrow, 1973. 200–13. Willard, Barbara. “Barbara Willard.” (Interv. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way.) British Children’s Authors: Interviews at Home. Ed. Cornelia Jones and Olivia R. Way. Chicago: American Library Association, 1976. 167–76. Willard, Nancy. “‘From an Odd Corner of the Imagination’: A Conversation with Nancy Willard.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 109–20. Williams, Barbara. “Profile: Barbara Williams.” (Interv. Marilou Sorensen.) Language Arts 60.4 (1983): 488–95. Williams, John A. “John A. Williams.” (Interv. John O’Brien.) Interviews with Black Writers. Ed. John O’Brien. New York: Liveright, 1973. 225–43. Williams, Sherley Anne. “Sherley Anne Williams.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 285–301.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

218 Interview References

Williams, William Carlos. “An Interview with William Carlos Williams.” (Interv. John W. Gerber and Emily M. Wallace.) Interviews with William Carlos Williams: “Speaking Straight Ahead.” Ed. Linda Welshimer Wagner. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1976. 3–26. Williams-Garcia, Rita. “Rita Williams-Garcia.” (Interv. Shirley M. Jordan.) Broken Silences: Interviews with Black and White Women Writers. Ed. Shirley M. Jordan. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U P, 1993. 302–22. Williamson, Jack. “Jack Williamson.” (Interv. Paul Walker.) Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews. Ed. Paul Walker. Oradell, NJ: Luna Publications, 1978. 384–96. Wilson, Angus. “Angus Wilson.” (Interv. Michael Millgate.) Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews. Ed. George Plimpton. 1st ser. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. 251–66. Wonodi, Okogbule. “Interview with Okogbule Wonodi.” (Interv. John Agetua.) Interview with Six Nigerian Writers. Ed. John Agetua. Benin City: Bendel Newspapers Corporation, 1976. 9–15. Wright, Charles. “‘Metaphysics of the Quotidian’: A Conversation with Charles Wright.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin and William Heyen.) The PostConfessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 25–38. Wright, Charles. “At Oberlin College.” (Interv. Oberlin College.) Halflife: Improvisations and Interviews, 1977–87. Ed. Charles Wright. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1988. 59–88. Wright, Charles. “With Carol Ellis.” (Interv. Carol Ellis.) Halflife: Improvisations and Interviews, 1977–87. Ed. Charles Wright. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1988. 153–68. Wright, Charles. “With Elizabeth McBride.” (Interv. Elizabeth McBride.) Halflife: Improvisations and Interviews, 1977–87. Ed. Charles Wright. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. 126–52. Wright, Charles. “With Sherod Santos.” (Interv. Sherod Santos.) Halflife: Improvisations and Interviews, 1977–87. Ed. Charles Wright. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1988. 89–116. Wright, James. “James Wright.” (Interv. Bruce Henricksen.) American Poetry Observed. Ed. Joe David Bellamy. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984. 296–309. Wright, James. “Excerpts from Interviews.” (Interv. Peter Stitt.) James Wright: A Profile. Ed. Frank Graziano and Peter Stitt. Durango, CO.: Logbridge-Rhodes, 1988. 91–5. Wright, James. “The Art of Poetry XIX: James Wright.” (Interv. Peter Stitt.) Paris Review 62 (1975): 34–61. Yankowitz, Susan. “Susan Yankowitz.” (Interv. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig.) Interviews with Contemporary Women Playwrights. Ed. Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Koenig. New York: Beech Tree Books, William Morrow, 1987. 432–99. Young Bear, Ray. “Connected to the Past: An Interview with Ray Young Bear.” (Interv. Joseph Bruchac.) Survival This Way: Interviews with American Indian Poets. Ed. Joseph Bruchac. Tucson: Sun Tracks and U of Arizona P, 1987. 337–48.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interview References 219

Young, Al. “Al Young.” (Interv. John O’Brien.) Interviews with Black Writers. Ed. John O’Brien. New York: Liveright, 1973. 259–69. Young, Marguerite. “Marguerite Young.” (Interv. Charles Ruas.) Conversations with American Writers. Ed. Charles Ruas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984. 91–127. Yourcenar, Marguerite. (Interv. Matthieu Galey.) With Open Eyes: Conversations with Matthieu Galey. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Boston: Beacon P, 1984. Zimmer, Paul. “‘The Holy Words’: A Conversation with Paul Zimmer.” (Interv. Stan Sanvel Rubin.) The Post-Confessionals: Conversations with American Poets of the Eighties. Ed. Earl G. Ingersoll, Judith Kitchen, and Stan Sanvel Rubin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson U P, 1989. 261–75.

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

220 Interview References

Abish, Walter 139–40n3, 147n17 Abrams, M. H. 138n10 Achebe, Chinua 155–6n6 Acorn, Milton 136–7n7, 138n13, 158n18, 158n19 Adcock, Fleur 146n13 Adoff, Arnold 151n30 Aiken, Conrad 67, 152n48 Alamargot, Denis 143n12 Albee, Edward 92–3, 148n21, 148–9n22, 160n27 Aldiss, Brian W. 157n10 Alexander, Margaret Walker 144–5n4 Alexander, Sue 152n44, 153n50, 158n16, 158n19 Algren, Nelson 66, 155n4 Allen, Paula Gunn 139–40n3 Allen, Woody 125, 126 Althusser, Louis 10–11, 100–1, 144n3 Altick, Richard D. 103, 118 Amis, Kingsley 147–8n19 Amis, Martin 80, 144–5n4, 149n24, 153–4n1, 154n2, 154–5n3, 156n7 Ammons, A. R. 145n7, 155n4, 155n5 Amorsi, Ray 155–6n6 Anaya, Rudolfo A. 85–6, 158n18, 158n19, 159n21 Anderson, Benedict 143n13 Anderson, Jessica 139–40n3, 150n29, 152n45, 152n47, 152–3n49 Anderson, Poul 148–9n22 Anderson, Robert 139–40n3 Andrews, V. C. 116, 150n28, 155–6n6 Anesko, Michael 119 Anhalt, Edward 157–8n15, 158n19 Anouilh, Jean 138n13 Apple, Max 137–8n8, 139–40n3, 153–4n1

Arden, John 136–7n7, 148–9n22 Armstrong, Cherryl 20 Armstrong, Nancy 107–8 Arnold, Matthew 3, 11–15, 135n1, 165n2 Ashbery, John 63, 69, 128, 139–40n3 Asimov, Isaac 146n14 Astley, Thea 139–40n3, 145n5, 151n31 Asturias, Miguel Angel 148–9n22, 149n24, 157–8n15, 158n18, 158–9n20 Atlan, Liliane 138n9, 138n13, 139n2, 152n47, 156n7 Atwood, Margaret 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 147–8n19 Auchincloss, Louis 148–9n22, 149n24, 150n28, 157–8n15 Auden, W. H. 136–7n7 Auel, Jean 139–40n3, 155–6n6 Bacon, Francis 161–2n7 Baird, Alexander 147–8n19 Bakhtin, Mikhail 30, 73–5, 99–100, 104, 109, 160n2 Baldwin, Michael 138n11, 155n4 Balibar, Etienne 135n2 Bambara, Toni Cade 158n17 Barclay, Byrna 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 152n39, 156n7, 157–8n15, 158n18 Barker, Pat 153–4n1, 154n2, 157–8n15, 158n18 Barth, John 38–9, 90–3, 136–7n7, 138n9, 139–40n3, 141–2n6, 152n39 Barthelme, Donald 139n2, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 147–8n19, 150n29 Barthes, Roland 3, 104–7, 110, 122, 166n6 Basquiat 111 Bassing, Eileen 158n19, 158–9n20 221

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Index of Names

Baybars, Taner 78, 148n21, 148–9n22, 149n26, 154n2 Beagle, Peter S. 150n29 Beattie, Ann 67, 138n13, 139–40n3, 155–6n6 Beaugrande, Robert de 143n12 Becker, Howard S. 117, 167n8 Beckett, Samuel 43 Bedford, Jean 139–40n3, 148–9n22, 150n29, 152n45, 152n48 Bell, Marvin 151n30 Bellow, Saul 89, 136–7n7, 158n18, 159n21 Benedict, Pinckney 155n4 Benedikt, Michael 136–7n7 Bennett, Bruce 151n31 Bereiter, Carl 143n12 Berger, John 144n1 Berkenkotter, Carol 143n15 Berryman, John 146n11 Berthoff, Ann E. 42 Bester, Alfred 146n13, 155n4 Betts, Doris 152n46 Bidart, Frank 122 Blackburn, Thomas 138n13, 148n21, 148–9n22, 149n24, 149–50n27, 150n28 Blathwayt, Raymond 167n10 Bloch, Robert 144–5n4 Bloom, Benjamin S. 142n9 Bloom, Harold 14 Blume, Judy 157–8n15, 158n17 Blunden, Edmund 57, 145n5 Booth, Philip 139–40n3, 156n7 Borus, Daniel H. 53 Boston, Lucy 137–8n8, 147–8n19 Bottrall, Ronald 154–5n3 Bourdieu, Pierre 104, 166n6 Boyle, Kay 157–8n15, 158–9n20 Bracewell, Robert J. 141n5 Brackett, Leigh 147–8n19, 153n50, 154n2, 155n4 Bradbury, Malcolm 140–1n4 Bradbury, Ray 146n12, 146n14, 158–9n20 Braudy, Leo 117 Braun, Richard Emil 138n11 Brinson-Pineda, Barbara 156n7 Bristol, Michael D. 109, 165n3

Britton, James 42 Brodhead, Richard H. 118, 123 Brodkey, Linda 52, 144n1 Bromell, Nicholas K. 53 Brooks, Mel 146n9, 154–5n3, 158n18 Brophy, Brigid 148n21, 150n28 Brown, Ann L. 141n5 Brown, Rosellen 148–9n22, 158n17, 158n18 Brugman, Claudia 145n6 Brunner, John 67, 150n29 Buckler, Ernest 150n29 Budrys, Algis 149n24, 154–5n3 Burke, Kenneth 52, 107, 164n12 Burnett, W. R. 152n44, 155n4 Burns, Alan 139n2, 139–40n3, 140–1n4 Burrs, Mick 138n9, 139–40n3 Butler, Judith 106, 163–4n11, 164n15 Butts, Leonard C. 164–5n1 Caesar, Ann Hallamore 157n13 Cain, James M. 153–4n1 Caldwell, Erskine 152–3n49, 156–7n9, 157n14, 158n17, 158–9n20 Calisher, Hortense 56, 145n7 Campbell, Donald T. 142n9 Campbell, Joseph 136–7n7, 138n13 Campbell, Maria 139–40n3, 152n47 Campbell, Ramsey 154–5n3, 155–6n6 Campos, Julieta 149n24 Capote, Truman 137–8n8, 139–40n3, 151n31, 153n50, 156n7 Carey, Linda 143n12 Carr, Terry 139–40n3 Carroll, David 167n12 Carruth, Hayden 146n13 Carver, Raymond 136–7n7, 139n2, 140–1n4, 145n8, 146n13, 150n28, 150n29, 151n34, 152n43, 152n45, 152n47, 152–3n49, 153n50, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155–6n6, 156n7 Casey, Harry 131 Casey, Juanita 146n13 Céline, Louis–Fernand 164–5n1

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

222 Index of Names

Index of Names 223 Culver, Stuart 119–20, 167n12 Cunningham, Julia 158n16, 158n19, 158–9n20, 159n23 Cunningham, Veronica 153n50 Curtius, Ernst Robert 138n10 d’Alpuget, Blanche 147–8n19, 152–3n49, 153n50, 156–7n9 D’Andrade, Roy 40 Dahl, Roald 156–7n9 Davies, Robertson 136–7n7, 138n9, 140–1n4, 150n28, 153–4n1, 154–5n3, 156n7, 157n14, 158n19 Davis, Sara N. 21 Dawson, Fielding 156n7 de Matteo, Donna 139–40n3, 140–1n4 Delany, Samuel 139–40n3 Delgado, Abelardo 148n20, 148n21, 148–9n22, 149n24, 149–50n27, 153n50, 155n5 Dennis, Carl 156–7n9 Derrida, Jacques 120–1, 166n6, 167–8n13 Descartes, René 23 Deverell, Rex 157n11 DeVries, Peter 149n24 Dickey, James 43, 55–6, 62, 69, 133–4, 136–7n7, 138n13, 139–40n3, 151n33, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155n5, 155–6n6, 156n7, 156–7n9 Didion, Joan 65–6 Dinesen, Isak 89, 158–9n20 Doctorow, E. L. 25, 77, 98, 109, 149n23, 150n29, 154–5n3, 155n4, 157n11 Dodson, Owen 158–9n20, 159n21 Doig, Ivan 62, 147–8n19, 150n28, 151n34, 155n4 Domecq, Brianda 153n50, 158n19, 158–9n20 Donleavy, J. P. 148n21, 150n28 Doolittle, Hilda (H.D.) 19 Dorfman, Ariel 149n24, 158–9n20 Dorn, Edward 37–8, 138n13, 139n2, 139–40n3, 149n24, 150n29, 154–5n3, 158n18

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Cendrars, Blaise 140–1n4, 148–9n22 Cervantes, Lorna Dee 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 154n2 Chanquoy, Lucile 143n12 Chappell, Fred 66, 138n13, 145n5, 152–3n49, 156n7 Cheever, John 92, 117 Cherry, Kelly 139–40n3 Chester, Laura 62, 69, 155n4 Childress, Alice 147–8n19, 150n29, 151–2n38, 156n7, 157–8n15, 158n19, 158–9n20 Chopin, Frédéric 27 Churchill, Caryl 140–1n4 Cicourel, Aaron V. 142n9 Cisneros, Sandra 78, 138n13, 149n24, 150n28, 150n29, 155–6n6, 156–7n9 Clark, Eleanor 146n12 Clark, J. P. 148–9n22, 151n36 Clark, Leonard 148n20, 148–9n22, 155–6n6, 156n7 Clark, Timothy 17, 136n6, 138n10 Clarke, Austin 139–40n3, 148n21 Clemens, Samuel 144n2 Cocteau, Jean 138n9 Cohen, Leonard 139–40n3 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor 135n1 Colette 115 Collins, Wilkie 167n8 Commire, Anne 145n5, 152–3n49, 155–6n6, 156n7 Conrad, Joseph 118 Cook, Michael 154n2 Coover, Robert 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 144–5n4, 148–9n22, 150n28, 150n29, 154–5n3, 157n11 Coppel, Alfred 139–40n3, 156n8, 157–8n15, 158n18, 159n23 Corke, Hilary 155n4 Corpi, Lucha 138n13 Coulter, John 136–7n7 Couzijn, Michel 143n12 Cowley, Malcolm 113, 163n9 Coyne, John 139–40n3 Creeley, Robert 66, 152n39, 153–4n1, 156–7n9 Crowther, Bosley 10 Culler, A. Dwight 135n1

224 Index of Names

Eberhart, Mignon 78 Eberhart, Richard 18, 45–6, 136–7n7, 137–8n8, 138n9, 138n13, 139–40n3, 146n11, 149n24, 152n43, 156n7, 157n11 Edmond, Lauris 154–5n3, 155–6n6 Edmond, Murray 139–40n3, 140–1n4 Edson, Russell 136–7n7, 154–5n3 Egendorf, Arthur 49 Ekwensi, Cyprian 148n21, 153n50, 158n17 Elbow, Peter 42, 130 Elias, Norbert 15 Elinson, Jack 140–1n4 Eliot, George 33, 136n6, 167n8 Eliot, T. S. 14 Eliot, T. S. 153n50 Elkin, Stanley 144–5n4, 150n29, 152n48, 157n10, Ellin, Stanley 139–40n3, 151–2n38 Ellis, Bret Easton 152n48 Ellison, Ralph 89, 152–3n49, 155–6n6, 156n7, 157n14, 157–8n15, 158n17, 158n18, 158–9n20 Engel, Howard 154n2

Epstein, Julius J. 139–40n3 Erdrich, Louise 138n9, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155–6n6, 156n7 Ericsson, K. Anders 142n7 Etchison, Dennis 155n4 Farmer, Beverley 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 152n41, 152–3n49 Farmer, Penelope 150n29, 152n45 Faulkner, William 89, 93, 98, 139–40n3, 148n21, 149n24, 151n36, 152n42, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155n5, 155–6n6, 156n7, 158n19, 158–9n20 Faust, Irvin 138n9, 147–8n19, 148–9n22 Federman, Raymond 152–3n49 Feiffer, Jules 158n19 Ferguson, Harvie 15 Ferre, Rosario 139–40n3, 151–2n38 Ferrell, Anderson 140–1n4 Figes, Eva 139–40n3 Findley, Timothy 81–2, 149n24, 156n7, 157n14, 157–8n15, 158n16, 158n19 Finkel, Donald 139n2, 139–40n3 Flavell, John H. 141n5, 142n7 Fleming, Thomas 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 152n39, 155n4, 158–9n20, 159n23 Flippen, Ruth 149n24 Flower, Linda S. 141n5, 143n12, 143n15 Fornes, Maria Irene 146n13 Forrest–Pressley, D. L. 141n5 Forster, E. M. 89–90, 148n20, 148n21, 158–9n20, 159n25, 164–5n1 Foucault, Michel 104–7, 110–111, 117, 122, 166n6 Fowles, John 62, 89, 137–8n8, 148n21, 150n28, 154n2, 157n12, 158n17 Fox, William Price 158n17 Frankau, Pamela 153n50, 157–8n15, 158n18 Frazer, James George, Sir 135n3

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Dos Passos, John 84, 89, 150n28, 157–8n15, 158–9n20 Douglas, Ellen 139–40n3, 152n42, 153–4n1 Dove, Rita 137–8n8, 151n30, 154n2, 156n7 Dowse, Sara 147–8n19, 152n46 Drabble, Margaret 137–8n8, 148–9n22, 150n28, 150n29, 152–3n49, 158n18 duBois, Page 13–14 Dugan, Alan 77, 155n5 Dunn, Douglas 148n20, 156n7 Dunn, Stephen 154–5n3 Dunne, Philip 151–2n38 Durrell, Lawrence 64, 65, 78, 127, 136–7n7, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 146n10, 146n11, 147–8n19, 149n23, 149n26, 150n29, 151n31, 152–3n49, 153–4n1, 154n2, 155–6n6, 156n7, 157n10

Freedman, Jonathan 119 Freud, Sigmund 91, 98, 135n1, 135n2 Friebert, Stuart 154–5n3 Fritz, Jean 144–5n4, 152–3n49 Frost, Robert 134, 139–40n3, 157n11, 164–5n1 Frye, Northrop 14 Fugard, Athol 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 148n20, 151n31, 154–5n3 Gaines, Ernest J. 88, 158n18, 158–9n20 Gaines, Jane M. 166–7n7 Galbraith, David 143n12 Gallagher, Tess 136–7n7, 139–40n3, 146n15, 150n29, 152n45, 154–5n3, 156n7 Gallico, Paul 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 158n18 Gambaro, Griselda 61, 148–9n22, 149n24, 150n28, 153n50, 154–5n3, 158n19 García Márquez, Gabriel 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 149n24, 155n4, 155–6n6 Gardner, John 54, 56, 57, 62, 89, 151n30, 152n47, 156n7, 156–7n9, 157n10, 157–8n15, 158n17, 158n18 Garner, Alan 150n28, 154–5n3 Garner, Helen 145n5, 152–3n49 Gass, William 68, 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 149n24, 152n42, 152–3n49, 154n2, 155n4 Gems, Pam 139–40n3, 155n5 Gentner, Dedre 142n8 Gentner, Donald R. 142n8 Gibbons, Kaye 84–5, 145n5, 148–9n22, 152n39, 155n4, 158n18, 158n19, 158–9n20 Gibbs, Raymond W. 142n10 Ginsberg, Allen 136–7n7, 140–1n4, 152–3n49 Givner, Joan 146n13, 151n31, 152n39, 152n44 Godfrey, Dave 158–9n20 Gold, Herbert 67, 147–8n19 Goldberg, Jonathan 144n2

Golden, Marita 150n28 Golding, William 146n13, 152–3n49, 154n2, 155n4 Golson, G. Barry 101 Goosens, Louis 145n6 Gordon, Gordon 159n23 Gorey, Edward 150n28 Goyen, William 63, 67, 69, 76, 139–40n3, 144–5n4, 150n29, 155–6n6 Grady, Joe 145n6 Graves, John 35–6, 144–5n4, 152–3n49 Graves, Robert 145n5, 148n21, 150n28, 154–5n3 Greenblatt, Stephen 122–3, 166–7n7 Grenville, Kate 139–40n3, 152n42, 152n48, 154n2 Gruber, Howard E. 21 Gunn, Thom 148n21, 148–9n22 Guthrie, A. B., Jr. 158n17 H.D. (Hilda Doolittle) 19 Haley, Alex 67 Hall, Donald 67, 78, 136–7n7, 152n40, 152n47, 156n7, 156–7n9 Hall, James Baker 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 152–3n49, 158n18 Hamm, Charles 163n10 Hannah, Barry 151n34, 152–3n49 Hardwick, Elizabeth 154n2 Hardy, Thomas 33 Harper, Michael 147–8n19, 153–4n1, 155–6n6, 157–8n15 Harris, Wilson 29, 30, 57, 72, 75, 140–1n4, 137–8n8, 153–4n1, 154–5n3, 155n4 Harrison, Jim 68, 136–7n7, 147–8n19, 148–9n22 Hastings, J. Thomas 142n9 Hau’ofa, Epeli 148n21, 153n50, 157–8n15, 158n19, 158–9n20 Hawkes, John 147–8n19, 150n28, 151n31 Hawkes, Terence 165n3 Hawks, Howard 10 Hawthorne, Nathaniel 118 Hayes, John R. 143n12, 143n15

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Index of Names 225

Heaney, Seamus 78, 136–7n7, 139–40n3, 148n20, 148–9n22 Hearon, Shelby 56, 154–5n3 Heidegger, Martin 28 Hekman, Susan 23, 111 Heller, Joseph 149n24, 150n28, 156n7 Hemingway, Ernest 117, 164–5n1 Hempel, Amy 139–40n3, 140–1n4 Henderson, Hamish 154n2, 156–7n9 Henley, Beth 145n5, 158–9n20 Henry, Buck 158–9n20 Herakleitos 13–14 Herbert, Christopher 135n3 Herbert, James 149n24 Hernandez, Felisberto 61 Hesse, Carla 166–7n7 Hey, Phil 138n13 Highsmith, Patricia 78, 153n50 Hill, Geoffrey 27, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 148n21, 148–9n22, 150n28, 154–5n3, 155n4, 157n11 Hinz, Evelyn J. 161n4 Hirsch, E. D. 116, 165–6n4 Hirsch, Edward 151n31 Hoagland, Edward 155n4 Hoban, Russell 138n9, 138n13, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 152n47, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155n5, 155–6n6, 156n7, 156–7n9 Hogan, Linda 154–5n3, 156n7 Holden, Jonathan 139–40n3, 152–3n49, 154–5n3, 155n4 Holderness, Graham 165n2, 165n3 Holland, Dorothy 40 Holland, Laurence B. 167n12 Hollander, John 136–7n7, 150n29 Hopkins, John 154–5n3 Howe, Tina 137–8n8, 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 152–3n49 Hoyos, Angela de 149n24 Hoyt, Richard 140–1n4, 152n42 Hughes, Richard 149n25 Hulme, Keri 139–40n3 Hunter, Evan 158n19 Hyland, Gary 138n13, 148–9n22, 152–3n49, 154–5n3, 157n11

Idol, Billy 128 Ignatow, David 144–5n4, 145n5 Ike, Chukwuemeka 137–8n8, 140–1n4, 157n11 Inge, William 89, 157–8n15, 158n18, 159n21 Ionesco, Eugene 56, 140–1n4, 147–8n19, 150n29, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155–6n6, 156–7n9 Irving, Clifford 117 Irving, John 138n9 Isherwood, Christopher 67, 79, 146n14, 148–9n22, 152n39, 152–3n49 Ishiguro, Kazuo 139–40n3, 154–5n3 Jacker, Corinne 151n31, 151–2n38, 158–9n20 Jacobson, Marcia 119 James, Henry 119–20, 167n11 James, P. D. 139–40n3, 154–5n3 Jameson, Fredric 144n3 Janowitz, Tama 150n28 Jaszi, Peter 166–7n7 Johnson, B. S. 146n14, 152n48, 154–5n3 Johnson, Charles 28, 29, 72, 154–5n3 Johnson, Diane 139–40n3, 152n39 Johnson, Mark 3, 40–41, 44, 53, 58, 142n10, 145n6 Jones, David 67, 150n29 Jones, James 147–8n19, 155n4, 158n18 Jones, Madison 139–40n3 Jong, Erica 57–8, 136–7n7, 138n13, 139–40n3, 145n7, 146n13 Jonson, Ben 161–2n7 Joyce, James 117 Jung, C. G. 135n1 K.C. and the Sunshine Band 131 Kahn, Roger 149n25 Katz, Steve 138n9 Kaufman, Shirley 152n41, 152n46 Kellogg, Ronald T. 143n12 Kelton, Elmer 153n50, 153–4n1, 158–9n20 Kennedy, Adrienne 140–1n4

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

226 Index of Names

Kennedy, William 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 150n29, 151n31, 151n34, 152n39, 154–5n3, 158–9n20 Kennedy, X. J. 146n13, 149–50n27, 154–5n3 Kerlinger, Fred N. 142n9 Kett, Joseph F. 165–6n4 Keyes, Frances Parkinson 157–8n15, 158n18 Kincaid, Jamaica 139–40n3, 150n28 King, Larry L. 145n5, 149n24 Kingsolver, Barbara 146n13, 150n28, 155n5, 158–9n20 Kinnell, Galway 148–9n22 Kinsella, Thomas 157n11 Kittler, Friedrich A. 144n2 Kizer, Carolyn 149n24, 154n2 Kumin, Maxine 67, 151n35, 152n41, 152n43, 152–3n49, 153n50 Kunitz, Stanley 36, 59, 137–8n8, 138n9, 140–1n4, 145n5, 146n9, 147–8n19, 151n30, 153–4n1, 154–5n3, 156–7n9 L’Engle, Madeleine 79, 147–8n19, 155–6n6, 157–8n15, 158n17, 159n23 Lafferty, R. A. 147–8n19, 159n21 Lakoff, George 3, 40–41, 44, 53, 142n10, 145n6 Lamont, Michelle 166n6 Lathen, Emma 102 Laughlin, James 137–8n8, 138n13, 152n43, 152–3n49 Laumer, Keith 145n5 Laurence, Margaret 157n14, 158–9n20 Law, Jules David 136n4 Lawrence, D. H. 19 Le Guin, Ursula K. 79, 139–40n3, 146n9, 149n26, 150n28, 151n30, 152n42, 152–3n49, 154n2, 154–5n3, 155n4, 156n7, 156–7n9, 157–8n15, 158n17, 158n18, 158–9n20 Lea, Tom 153n50, 154n2 Lear, Norman 136–7n7 Lee, Harper 139–40n3, 155n4

Lehmann, John 147–8n19 Leigh, James 93, 137–8n8, 154–5n3, 158n18 Lemann, Nancy 136–7n7 Leonard, Hugh 67 Lessing, Doris 27, 28, 89, 145n5, 145n8, 146n13, 153n50, 154–5n3, 158n17 Levertov, Denise 78, 138n11, 139–40n3, 154n2 Levi, Peter 144–5n4, 147–8n19 Levine, George 135n1 Levine, Lawrence 165n3 Levine, Philip 138n13, 139–40n3, 146n12, 146n13, 147–8n19, 151n31, 151–2n38, 157n11 Lewis, Janet 140–1n4, 157n10, 158n18 Liddy, James 150n29 Lipsitz, Lou 137–8n8 Lodge, David 152n39 Lopez, Barry 139–40n3, 152n41, 152n42, 152n46 Lord, Gabrielle 147–8n19 Lorde, Audre 139–40n3, 149n24, 150n28, 151n31, 151–2n38, 153n50, 153–4n1, 154–5n3 Lowell, Robert 152n43, 156n7 Lowry, H. F. 135n1 Ludwig, Jack 151n36 MacBeth, George 140–1n4 Macdonald, Cynthia 85–8, 158n18 Macdonald, Ross 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 154–5n3, 156n7 MacEwen, Gwendolyn 139–40n3 MacInnes, Helen 150n28, 151n36 MacKinnon, G. E. 141n5 MacLeish, Archibald 150n28, 154n2 MacLennan, Hugh 152n47 MacMahon, Bryan 148n20 MacPherson, Margaret 158n18 Madaus, George F. 142n9 Madden, David 157–8n15 Madge, Charles 153n50, 154–5n3, 156n7 Mailer, Norman 138n9, 146n14, 149n24, 153–4n1, 155–6n6, 156–7n9

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Index of Names 227

Major, Clarence 26, 27, 45, 139–40n3, 151n31 Malamud, Bernard 89, 158n17 Mallin, Tom 152–3n49, 157–8n15, 158n17, 158n18, 159n23 Malraux, André 117 Manchester, William 147–8n19 Mandel, Barrett J. 42 Mandler, Jean M. 142n8 Manfred, Frederick 43, 79–80, 136–7n7, 139–40n3, 146n12, 150n28, 152n39, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155n5, 156–7n9, 158n19 Mann, Emily 140–1n4, 147–8n19, 155n4, 156–7n9 Marquand, J. P. 117 Masten, Jeffrey 144n2 Masters, Olga 145n5, 147–8n19, 158–9n20 Matthews, William 147–8n19, 154–5n3 Matthiessen, Peter 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 148–9n22, 149n24, 149n25, 153n50 Mauriac, François 138n13, 140–1n4 Mazzaro, Jerome 139–40n3, 151n33, 152n39, 152n47, 154–5n3 McAlpine, Rachel 146n12 McCaffrey, Anne 152n39, 154–5n3, 155n4 McConkey, James 150n28 McCorkle, Jill 156n7 McDonald, Peter D. 118–9, 167n10 McDowell, Michael 144–5n4, 150n29 McGuane, Thomas 144–5n4, 155–6n6, 157n10, 157n11 McInerney, Jay 152n43 McKuen, Rod 156n7, 156–7n9, 157n11 McMurtry, Larry 89, 140–1n4, 152n41, 155n4, 156–7n9, 157n14, 158n16, 158n17 McPherson, Sandra 155n4 Meltzer, Françoise 115 Merriam, Eve 136–7n7, 158n19, 158–9n20

Merrill, Jean 154–5n3 Merton, Robert 109 Merwin, W. S. 136–7n7, 153–4n1 Michener, James A. 145n5, 148n21, 150n28, 151n33, 152–3n49, 155n4, 155–6n6, 158–9n20 Millar, Margaret 158n17 Miller, Arthur 148n21, 149n24, 152n46, 154–5n3, 155n4 Miller, David Neal 161n5 Miller, Frederick D. 142n7 Miller, Henry 29, 56, 67, 72, 138n9, 138n13 Miller, J. Hillis 135n1, 167n12 Milton, John 107 Mindell, Earl 117 Minty, Judith 147–8n19, 152–3n49, 155n5, 156n8 Mistry, Rohinton 139–40n3, 147–8n19 Mitchell, W. O. 139n2, 144–5n4, 154–5n3 Miyoshi, Masao 135n1 Molina, Silvia 140–1n4 Momaday, N. Scott 136–7n7, 148n21, 150n28 Montoya, José 146n13, 152–3n49, 156n7 Moore, Lorrie 139–40n3, 152–3n49, 155n5 Moran, Joe 104, 117 Moravia, Alberto 64, 69 Morgan, Edwin 156n7 Morgan, Murray 152n43 Morgan, Robert 136–7n7 Morrell, David 154n2 Morrison, Toni 67, 147–8n19, 155–6n6 Morrissey, Charles T. 160n3 Mortimer, John 157–8n15, 158n19 Moss, Howard 152n47, 155n4 Mueller, Lisel 154–5n3 Muldoon, Paul 155n4 Munro, Alice 147–8n19, 149n24, 149n26, 151n30, 152n48, 154n2 Murdoch, Iris 154n2, 155n5 Murray, Donald M. 68, 143n15 Myers, Martin 87, 152–3n49, 158–9n20

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

228 Index of Names

Nabokov, Vladimir 34, 89–91, 101, 138n13, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 147–8n19, 158–9n20 Naylor, Gloria 138n9, 156n7 Ni Dhuibhne, Eilis 139–40n3 Nichols, John 147–8n19, 154–5n3, 155–6n6, 156n7 Nicholson, Norman 155n4 Nin, Anaïs 147–8n19, 161n4 Nisbett, Richard E. 142n7 Norman, Donald A. 142n8 Norton, Andre 158–9n20 O’Brien, Tim 152n43 O’Connor, Flannery 62, 78 O’Neill, Eugene 136n4 Oates, Joyce Carol 83–4, 86, 89, 145n8, 146n13, 146n14, 155n4, 157n14, 158n16, 158n18, 158n19, 158–9n20, 159n22 Ohmann, Richard 118 Okara, Gabriel 148n21 Okigbo, Christopher 151n31 Omotoso, Kole 158–9n20 Orr, Gregory 138n9, 138n13, 139–40n3 Orton, Joe 153n50 Ortony, Andrew 142n8 Owens, Rochelle 156–7n9 Packard, William 161–2n7, 162–3n8 Paley, Grace 156n7, 158n17, 158n18 Pastan, Linda 150n28, 151n34, 153n50, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155n5, 156n7, 156n8 Paulin, Tom 139–40n3, 151n31, 154n2 Paz, Octavio 138n13 Pearson, John H. 119 Perelman, S. J. 128 Perl, Sondra 49 Perry, Anne 154n2, 157–8n15, 158n17, 158–9n20 Perry, Elaine 158n18 Petrakis, Harry Mark 64, 77, 139–40n3, 146–7n16, 153–4n1, 154–5n3, 155n4, 157–8n15, 158n18, 159n23

Petroski, Henry 144n2 Petry, Ann 77, 155n4, 157–8n15, 158n17 Pfister, Joel 135n2, 136n4 Philips, Deborah 116 Phillips, Jayne Anne 154–5n3 Picard, Barbara Leonie 153n50 Pinter, Harold 89, 145n5, 148n20, 158n17, 158n18, 159n24 Pirandello, Luigi 80–1, 157n12, 157n13 Pitter, Ruth 148–9n22, 154–5n3, 155n5 Plain, Belva 139–40n3, 148n21, 149n24, 150n28, 156–7n9 Plato 138n10 Plimpton, George 113, 164–5n1 Plumly, Stanley 136–7n7, 138n9, 139–40n3, 155n4 Pollitt, Katha 139–40n3, 152n47 Poniatowska, Elena 139–40n3, 152n42, 153n50 Porter, Katherine Anne 61, 89, 90, 144–5n4, 147–8n19, 150n28, 157–8n15, 158n18, 158–9n20, 159n23, 159–60n26 Portillo, Estela 148n20, 148n21, 148–9n22 Potok, Chaim 152n47, 155n4, 155–6n6, 156–7n9 Powell, Anthony 87 Prescott, Frederick Clark 19 Press, John 154–5n3 Price, Reynolds 138n13, 155n4, 157n14, 158n19 Prytz, Carl Frederik 154n2 Queen, Ellery 102 Queneau, Raymond 157n12 Quinn, Naomi 40, 142n10 Raeburn, John 118 Raine, Craig 139–40n3, 154–5n3 Reaney, James 149n23 Rechy, John 157n10 Reddy, Michael 56, 70, 129, 142n10, 145n6 Reiner, Carl 147–8n19 Reiss, James 146n13

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Index of Names 229

Rembrandt 138n11 Rendell, Ruth 139–40n3 Revard, Carter 146n11, 146n13 Rexroth, Kenneth 140–1n4, 154–5n3 Rich, Adrienne 154–5n3 Richler, Mordecai 147–8n19 Riede, David G. 135n1 Rijlaarsdam, Gert 143n12 Rilke, Rainer Maria 19 Ringwood, Gwen Pharis 147–8n19 Rinkoff, Barbara 157–8n15 Rivkin, Julie 167n12 Robbins, Tom 136–7n7, 147–8n19 Robinson, Casey 137–8n8 Robinson, Marilynne 139–40n3, 152n43, 153–4n1 Rodgers, W. R. 151n34, 154–5n3 Roe, Sue 155–6n6, 156n7 Roper, Alan 135n1 Rose, Mark 166–7n7 Rose, Mike 143n12 Rose, Nikolas 135n2 Ross, Lee 142n7 Rosten, Leo 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 151n31, 152–3n49, 155–6n6, 158–9n20 Roth, Philip 147–8n19, 148n20, 154–5n3, 155–6n6 Rothenberg, Jerome 137–8n8, 145n5 Rowland, William G., Jr. 123, 165–6n4 Roy, Gabrielle 149n23, 149n24, 157n11, 157–8n15, 158n18 Ruas, Charles 163n9 Rukeyser, Muriel 146n14, 154–5n3 Rumelhart, David E. 142n8 Rushdie, Salman 152n43, 155–6n6, 157n14, 157–8n15, 158n17, 158n18, 158–9n20 Ryan, Alan 152–3n49 Sagel, Jim 150n29, 158n18 Salmon, Richard 118, 119, 167n11 Sand, George 136n6 Sansom, William 84, 157–8n15, 158–9n20 Sapergia, Barbara 158n18

Sarton, May 136–7n7, 138n9 Scaife, C. H. O. 140–1n4, 155n4 Scannell, Vernon 140–1n4, 148–9n22, 154n2, 154–5n3, 155n4 Scardamalia, Marlene 143n12 Scarry, Elaine 32–7, 44, 53, 139n1 Schmitz, Dennis 152n43 Schmitz, James 138n13, 155n4 Schnog, Nancy 135n2 Schon, Donald A. 3, 44, 141n5, 142n10 Schriver, Karen 143n12 Schultz, John 149n24 Schultz, Philip 154–5n3, 157n10, 158–9n20 Schutz, Alfred 39, 143n17 Scott, Allan 153n50 Sebestyen, Ouida 157–8n15, 158n17 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky 167n12 Seferis, George 76, 146n11 Seltzer, Mark 53 Sexton, Anne 43, 56, 146n9, 146n13, 152–3n49 Shakespeare, William 115–16, 161–2n7, 164n13, 165n2, 165n3 Shange, Ntozake 140–1n4, 157n14 Sharp, Margery 145n5, 150n29 Shaw, G. Bernard 117 Shelton, Richard 153n50 Shotwell, Louisa 158n19, 158–9n20, 159n23 Silkin, Jon 148n21, 150n28 Silko, Leslie Marmon 86, 139–40n3, 149n26, 152–3n49, 156n7, 157–8n15, 158n17, 158n18 Silliman, Ron 139–40n3, 155–6n6 Sillitoe, Alan 67, 152–3n49 Silver, Brenda R. 104 Silverberg, Robert 145n5 Simenon, Georges 140–1n4 Simic, Charles 58, 155n4, 156–7n9 Simmie, Lois 147–8n19, 154–5n3, 158n18, 158–9n20, 159n23 Simon, Herbert A. 142n7 Simon, Neil 155n5 Simpson, Louis 156–7n9 Simpson, Mona 152n43

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

230 Index of Names

Singer, Isaac Bashevis 153n50, 161n5 Siskin, Clifford 53 Small, Christopher 163n10 Smith, Eliot R. 142n7 Smith, Mark 152–3n49 Smith, Stevie 68, 136–7n7, 145n5, 155n4 Snyder, Gary 136–7n7, 138n9, 148–9n22, 149n24, 153–4n1, 155n5 Solzhenitsyn, Alexander 117 Somers, Armonía 146n11, 147–8n19, 148n21, 149n24, 155n4, 156n7, 158–9n20 Sontag, Susan 144n1 Sontag, Susan 149n24, 154n2 Speare, Elizabeth George 147n17, 154–5n3, 156n7, 157–8n15, 158n16, 159n23 Spencer, Bernard 75–6, 154–5n3 Spencer, Elizabeth 136–7n7, 137–8n8, 139–40n3, 148n21, 150n28, 151n36, 152–3n49, 155n4, 155–6n6, 156–7n9, 158n18 Spiro, Rand J. 142n8 Spivak, Gayatri C. 105, 122 Stael, Madame de 136n6 Stafford, William 138n13, 140–1n4, 144–5n4, 152–3n49, 153n50, 154–5n3, 155n4 Stallybrass, Peter 144n2 Stanford, Frank 150n28 Stanford, Michael 165–6n4 Stange, G. Robert 135n1 Stanley, Julian C. 142n9 Staton, Robert J. 161n4 Stegner, Wallace 78, 140–1n4, 145n5, 150n28, 151n30, 153–4n1, 155n5, 155–6n6 Stein, Gertrude 2 Steinbeck, John 148n20 Stern, Gerald 136–7n7, 149n24, 149n26, 154n2, 156n7 Stern, Richard G. 149n24 Stewart, Mary 137–8n8, 140–1n4, 155n4 Stolz, Mary 159n23 Stone, Ruth 77, 155n4

Stoppard, Tom 139–40n3, 147n18, 152–3n49, 154–5n3, 155n4, 156–7n9 Storey, David 144–5n4, 148n21, 150n28, 150n29, 155n4, 158–9n20 Strand, Mark 136–7n7 Stratman, James 143n12 Stryk, Lucien 154–5n3 Styron, William 77, 145n5, 150n28, 150n29, 153n50, 154–5n3 Suknaski, Andrew 67, 139–40n3, 144–5n4, 145n5, 155–6n6 Sutcliff, Rosemary 154–5n3, 157–8n15 Sweetser, Eve E. 142n10 Swenson, May 140–1n4 Swift, Joan 152–3n49 Sword, Helen 14, 19 Tate, James 67, 145n7, 149n24, 150n29, 152n46, 155n5 Taylor, Charles 38 Taylor, Gary 108–9, 164n13, 165n3 Tennant, Emma 155–6n6, 156n7 Tennenhouse, Leonard 107–8 Tennyson, Alfred Lord 118 Terry, Megan 138n13, 139–40n3, 151n37, 158n19, 158–9n20 Theroux, Paul 146n15 Thomas, D. M. 136–7n7, 144–5n4 Thoreau, Henry David 144n2 Tinker, C. B. 135n1 Tomlinson, Barbara 142n7 Tomlinson, Charles 154–5n3, 156n7 Torrance, Mark 143n12 Traba, Marta 156n7 Trefil, James 165–6n4 Trevor, William 137–8n8, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 149n24, 150n29, 151n36, 157–8n15 Trollope, Anthony 167n8 Turner, Alberta A. 101 Turner, Mark 142n10 Unamuno, Miguel de 90 Updike, John 117, 148n20, 151n31, 155n4

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Index of Names 231

Valentine, Jean 139–40n3, 157n11 Valenzuela, Luisa 149n24, 153n50 Van den Bergh, Huub 143n12 Van Der Post, Larens 78 Vickers, Nancy J. 144n2 Vidal, Gore 64, 69, 133, 140–1n4, 155n4, 161n4 Villanueva, Tino 150n29, 152n45 Wagoner, David 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 155n4, 157n10 Waldman, Anne 136–7n7 Walker, Alice 154–5n3, 156n7 Wallace, Robert 140–1n4, 152n41, 154–5n3, 155n4 Waller, T. Gary 141n5 Walser, Robert 15–16 Warren, Robert Penn 136–7n7, 145n5, 147–8n19, 148n21, 150n28, 151n31, 154–5n3, 155n4, 156n7, 157n10 Waters, Michael 138n9, 138n12, 148n20, 154–5n3, 158n19 Watson, Sheila 148n21, 157n11 Watts, Cedric 118 Waugh, Evelyn 164–5n1 Weedon, Chris 101 Weidman, Jerome 151n32 Weik, Mary Hays 155n4, 158n18, 158–9n20 Weinstein, Cindy 53 Weiss, Theodore 136–7n7, 148–9n22 Welch, Lew 145n5 Welty, Eudora 61, 137–8n8, 138n9, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 145n5, 146n10, 146n13, 147–8n19, 148–9n22, 149n23, 150n28, 150n29, 151n31, 151n33, 152n45, 152n46, 152–3n49, 153n50, 153–4n1, 154n2, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155–6n6, 156n7, 156n8, 158n16 Wernick, Andrew 114–6, 120–1, 166n6, 167n9, 167–8n13 Wersba, Barbara 158n16, 158n19 Wescott, Glenway 139n2, 149n26, 150n28, 150n29, 154n2 West, Jessamyn 62, 89, 147–8n19, 149n24, 150n29, 158n17

Whalen, Philip 67 Wheelock, John Hall 149n24 White, Allon 73 White, E. B. 78, 147–8n19, 148–9n22 White, Edmund 144–5n4, 146n9, 147–8n19, 159n23 White, Peter 142n7 Whitman, Walt 115 Wicke, Jennifer 166n5 Wier, Dara 155–6n6 Wilbur, Richard 152n43, 152–3n49, 154–5n3, 155n4, 155n5 Wilkinson, Sylvia 87, 158–9n20 Willard, Barbara 155n4 Willard, Nancy 136–7n7, 155n4 Williams, Barbara 150n28 Williams, John A. 67, 148n21 Williams, Raymond 2, 100 Williams, Sherley Anne 152–3n49 Williams, William Carlos 149n25 Williams–Garcia, Rita 158n16, 158n18, 158n19 Williamson, Jack 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 154–5n3 Willy 115, 117 Wilson, Angus 148–9n22 Wilson, Christopher P. 118 Wilson, Timothy DeCamp 142n7 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 135n3 Wolfe, Thomas 79 Wonodi, Okogbule 140–1n4 Woodmansee, Martha 123, 166–7n7 Wright, Charles 139n2, 139–40n3, 140–1n4, 145n7, 145n8, 150n29, 151n31, 152n43, 153–4n1, 155n4, 155–6n6, 156–7n9 Wright, James 137–8n8, 140–1n4, 150n29, 152n45, 154n2, 154–5n3 Yankowitz, Susan 147–8n19, 148n21, 149n23, 154–5n3 Yates, Edmund 118 Yeats, William Butler 27, 138n12 Young Bear, Ray 148–9n22, 149n24, 151n36

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

232 Index of Names

Index of Names 233 150n29, 151n32, 152n41, 153–4n1, 156n7, 157–8n15, 158n18, 158n19, 158–9n20, 159n23 Zimmer, Paul 136–7n7, 139–40n3, 147–8n19 Zola, Emile 33 Zukovsky, Louis 66

10.1057/9780230595668 - Authors on Writing, Barbara Tomlinson

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Young, Al 140–1n4, 157n11 Young, Marguerite 139–40n3, 152n39, 157n11 Yourcenar, Marguerite 20, 25, 26, 27, 34, 36, 45, 60, 67, 136–7n7, 137–8n8, 138n9, 138n11, 138n13, 139–40n3, 147–8n19, 148n21, 148–9n22, 149n24, 150n28,