As
many of you who have been following my thoughts on "reading the short
story" over the years know, I usually only read novels under special
circumstances: for example, when someone is paying me to review one (which is
seldom), when one gets such a lot of attention I just have to know what the
fuss is about (which is rare), or when I am just too lazy or exhausted to read
a good short story (which is occasional). This past Sunday it was the latter
circumstance that led me to a novel I previously had no intention of reading.
I
had not been feeling well—some transient bug or another that left me drained of
energy, reduced to lounging on the couch.
My wife had just finished reading Elizabeth Strout's My Name is Lucy Barton, which had only
taken her about two hours, and it was just lying there on the coffee table,
waiting to go back to the local library.
I
had read Strout’s Olive Kitteridge, a collection of thirteen loosely
linked stories that won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction a few years ago, and was
not impressed, although I was pleased that the Pulitzer judges had graciously
grant the prize to a collection of short stories, which they seldom do. I am
suspicious of collections of short stories "linked" together and
packaged by publishers as a novel. And the character Olive in Strout's stories
seemed just that—a set-up surrounded by various other characters to reveal her supposed
hidden nature.
However,
Best American Short Stories 2013,
which Elizabeth Strout edited, was one of the best of the Best I had read in many years. I wrote at that time: "If you
love short stories, you will relish this collection; however, if you prefer novels,
or if you just never got the hang of reading short stories, you may want to
pass it by." I congratulated Elizabeth Strout for choosing stories that
read--for better or worse, depending on your perspective--like short stories
unified by a complex theme, not like loose, randomly-arranged chapters of
novels.
Furthermore,
the fact that my wife had read Lucy
Barton in only two hours (and she is
not a skimmer, but a careful reader) made me think that perhaps it was not a
novel at all, but rather a novella. In the Random House hardback, it is190
pages, and the pages have much more white space than large black letters—wide margins
and double spaces between the lines.
I
did a quick estimate—25 lines per page of approximately 8 words per line equals
200 words, which then equals just about 38,000 words. I checked the various critics
in the past who dared tentative definitions based on the relationship of length
to terminology, and they generally agreed that a novella, short novel, novelette,
nouvelle, novelle—whatever they called that thing longer than a short story but
shorter than a novel--was usually somewhere between 20,000 to 50,000 words.
While
I was pondering whether I wanted to spend two hours of a spring Sunday
afternoon reading a novel by someone I had not found that interesting as a
short-story writer, but who seemed to really know what good short stories were,
I picked up the Los Angeles Times and
read the following opening paragraph of a review by A.N. Devers of a new novel
by Max Porter entitled Grief is the Thing
With Feathers:
"You can't judge a
book by its thickness. It is time to retire the diminutive words often call
upon to describe shorter novels and novellas and works of nonfiction—slim, spare, compact, jewel of a, or
worse, quick, fast, tight, little,
anything that suggests a book is missing something in length or heft—for the
underlying (perhaps unintentional) implication is that the book is a simpler or
speedier read or that it was somehow easier to write."
Devers
concludes her favorable review by saying that Porter's book is a complex story,
not simply told or sparse, and missing nothing. "Let it be a call for more
great books of this length to be recognized for what they are—whole."
Well, yes, indeed, thank you, Ms. Devers. I will read this book for what you
say it is—a novella—not an abbreviated novel.
I
then took a look at some reviews of Strout's
Lucy Barton, and damn all! the first
one I came across was a "Bottom Line" piece on the Huffington Post,
which concluded:
"My Name is Lucy Barton is a slight novel, easily consumed in one
sitting, and Strout's prose is light, clear, and deliberate, ever offering the
telling detail but no more than that.
Yet at times one can't help but wish there was more story to tell,
though she continues to tell this one very skillfully."
Well,
now my interest was aroused. Any time a
fiction gets scolded for being too short, I want to read it. So I did.
And two hours later I decided that Strout's new book was indeed a
novella—in other words, not a novel that was short, but rather a short story
that was long. Which for me means a piece of fiction that must be read as one
reads a short story, not as one reads a novel.
And if you read My Name is Lucy
Barton as a long short story, you will not "wish there was more story
to tell," but be glad that Elizabeth Strout is not interested in merely
spinning out a novelistic narrative, but in creating a complete and unified
story.
Although
the term "novella" is used to refer both to the short pieces of
fourteenth-century fiction best exemplified by Boccaccio's Decameron and
the highly-developed nineteenth-century German form, it is more often used in
the twentieth century to refer to a number of works of mid-range length,
somewhat longer than the short story and somewhat shorter than the novel. In his Preface to "The Lesson of the
Master," Henry James says that
among forms there was "on the dimensional ground-for length and breadth—our
ideal, the beautiful and blest nouvelle;
the generous, the enlightened hour for which appeared thus at last to shine."
James argues
that that the nouvelle's “main merit and sign is the effort to do the
complicated thing with a strong brevity and lucidity—to arrive, on behalf of
the multiplicity, at a certain science of control.” The comment has led to the
observation that the novella has the novel’s complexity and the short story’s
control. But my question is: Is the
“complexity” of the novella the same kind of complexity that usually characterizes
the novel? And is the “control” of the
novella the same kind of control that usually characterizes the short story
Based on my
reading of hundreds of novels and novellas and thousands of short stories, I
believe that the novella is closer to the short story both in theme and
technique than it is to the novel. So,
for me the question is not what makes the short novel shorter than the novel,
but what makes the novella longer than the short story. To run the risk of
oversimplification, I would hazard the following tentative distinctions. The complexity of the novel is primarily social, historical, and
cultural. The complexity of the novella
is primarily psychological, mythical,
and philosophical The novella is a form that, at its best, is closer in style,
structure, and theme to the short story than it is to the novel.
And from my
point of view, there is a difference between a novella and simply a novel that
is short. For example, whereas Andre Dubus III's short novels in his collection
Dirty Love are merely novels that are
short—just lots of "as if" real stuff about semi-interesting
characters living in what seems like a "real world," Colm Toibin's Brooklyn, although marketed as a novel,
is best read as if it were a short story—that is, as a novella.
The
stories in Dubus's Dirty Love are not
short fiction at its best; they reaffirm critical opinion that there is little
danger Andre Dubus III will be called a "writer's writer," which is
probably just fine with him, for he writes in a grittier, more realistic,
digressive novelistic style than the lyrical, tightly woven poetic style of his
father, one of the great short-story writers of the 20th century.
These four works of fiction are more like "short novels" than
novellas.
However,
although Brooklyn reads like a novel
throughout most of its length, somewhere along the way, everything seems to
tighten and pull together—not like a novel, but like a short story—and the
reader is thrown back to the whole of the story and made to see everything in a
new light—the precise, poetic style of the work, the careful creation of a
literary world with a rhythm of reality all its own. The story is not a realistic novel about a
particular woman in a particular time and particular place, but rather a
lyrical tale about the universal dilemma of anyone who is displaced, tries to
go home again but cannot, returns to the displacement, and finds out that
neither the old home nor the new home feels like “home.” Brooklyn is a classic story of homesickness,
a story that does not simply give a particular example, but rather explores and
defines the complexity of that kind of loneliness.
Many readers
and critics may very well fuss that generic terminology matters little or not
at all, noting that “a rose by any other name” blah, blah, blah,", I would
argue that it matters a great deal in terms of what kind of experience readers
are in for when they pick up a book called “short stories,” “a novella,” or “a
novel.” I agree with C. S. Lewis, who once said, “The first qualification for
judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know
what it is – what it was intended to do, and how it is meant to be used!” If
one does not formulate some means of knowing this, then one can say nothing to
the purpose about it, and indeed may run the risk of misunderstanding, or
misjudging, it entirely.
Readers and
reviewers who read Elizabeth Strout's My
Name is Lucy Barton as if it were a novel might very well be dissatisfied
by the book's "shortness"—might indeed wish there were more details
about Lucy's life, some context (for context is an important concept to young
assistant professors trying to collect vitae fodder these days) to account for
the experience that shimmers at the center of this purposely small book.
But readers
familiar with how short stories work will notice right away that the very tone
of the voice we hear establishes a parable-like rhythm, beginning "There
was a time, and it was many years ago now, when I had to stay in a hospital for
almost nine weeks." We do not know
what physically ails Lucy, for that is not important, for what ails here is
what ails us all—loneliness, mystery about our isolation. As Lucy says,
"To begin with, it was a simple story." But of course, it is the
central story of all life, which her mother's stories and her memories remind
her of throughout.
Lucy's creative
writing teacher Sarah Payne tells her: "You'll write your one story many
ways. Don't ever worry about story. You have only one." And by this, she
does not mean, as one reviewer suggests, the "inverse of the old saw that
everyone has a novel in them," but rather the human central story that
Payne states most explicitly when she tells her students to go to the page
without judgment and reminds them that they "never knew, and never would
know, what it would be like to understand another person fully."
Lucy thinks
this seems like a simple thought, "but as I get older I see more and more
that she had to tell us that. We think,
always we think, What is it about someone that makes us despise that person,
that makes us feel superior?"
Everything in My Name is Lucy Barton reflects on this
one story—the one human story that I have observed in the short story in
everything I have written about it over the years. It is why Frank O'Connor
famously said "there is in the short story at its most characteristic
something we do not often find in the novel—an intense awareness of human
loneliness." It is why I titled my last book about the short story I Am Your Brother.
One of the many
references to this motif of loneliness in Strout's book is Lucy's description
of the statue in the Metropolitan Museum of Art that engages her with both love
and anguish. It is Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's "Ugolino and His Sons,
"which depicts Dante's description of Count Ugolino, sentenced to starve
to death. Ugolino looks at the faces of his sons surrounding him and in grief
bites his own hands:
"And
suddenly from the floor arising they,
Thinking my
hunger was the cause of it,
Exclaimed: Father
eat thou of us, and stay
Our suffering:
thou didst our being dress
In this sad
flesh; now strip it all away."
Lucy reads the
placard that explains that the children are offering themselves as food for
their father to make his distress disappear. "They will allow him—oh,
happily, happily—to eat them. And I
thought, So that guy knew. Meaning the
sculptor. He knew. And so did the poet
who wrote what the sculptor has shown.
He knew too."
And what do
they all know? The one story that all
short story writers know--the story of loneliness and the yearning to find the
self by losing the self in the other.
4 comments:
Thank you so much for all of your comments about short stories, novellas, and novels. Certainly, true for me in my experiences of reading short stories. I don't read novels but in my writing group some people are working on novels and it is painful for me to read their novel chapters, not because of their lack of skill but my lack of being able to easily read the way a novel requires.
Thank you for this, Charles. I will try to read Strout's book over the weekend. I would enjoy hearing about other novels you believe can be read as short stories. Marilynne Robinson's Housekeeping comes to mind--would you agree?
There is much more. Lucy Barton is the first-person narrator. She proceeds in a deadpan, conversational manner, without a trace of self-consciousness. She pieces little episodes together almost like a mosaic. Not only, then, is MY NAME IS LUCY BARTON a remarkably rich novel for its 191 pages, it also is very finely crafted.
I agree with One Hour Device that My Name is Lucy Barton is a rich and finely crafted novel. And a very self contained one, as you say. I believe it is Liz Strout's best yet though I am very partial to the first Olive Kitteridge book and Oh William!. It is Strout's sparse writing style that I find particularly readable and admirable. That said, Lucy By the Sea was not very fulfilling. All three books involving Lucy Barton are very compact.
Post a Comment