One of my strongest memories involves ducking behind a bush to avoid a patrolling MP. The year is 1998; I’m 10 years old. My friend and I are dueling with cap guns designed to look like Uzis. My friend, a native of Nebraska whose father works in the Army, shoots caps at me through skeletal bushes and over the hoods of cars. We battle our way through a parking lot, and as we do I construct a number of scenarios to explain why, despite our friendly history, we now want to maim each other with high-tech explosives and bullets. I tell myself I’m a young James Bond, hurled abruptly and senselessly into training. I’m a private in the Allied armies caught up in a skirmish in North Africa. I’m a CIA agent, tasked only with taking out “evil” in a faraway, suffocating jungle. I’m all of these things — that is, until my friend tackles me.
“What the hell?” I say. At this point I’m old enough that swears are less thrilling than routine. “What was that?”
“Don’t talk.” My friend gives a signal to follow. I comply, and as we crawl behind a bush and huddle side by side, it strikes me that this is the closest I’ll ever get to real warfare.
My friend says an MP on a road nearby staged firefights like ours as a kid. One day an eccentric soldier, unaware that his cap guns were toys, upheld the safety of his community by shooting the MP in the leg. Ever since that life-marring day, the MP walked with a limp, his gait a jarring reminder of the perils of play-acting too well. It fell to us to avoid him, my friend explained, because the MP “went ballistic” when he spotted young boys using cap guns. I didn’t know what that entailed, exactly, but I knew it was very bad, so I hid my gun under my T-shirt and prayed for the MP to stalk away.
I bring this up now because lately I’ve felt that it helped forge my taste in literature. Not the cap gun incident specifically, but the many incidents like it — I went to school on an Army base for several years, and I grew to believe my time there unavoidably skewed my perspective. To call Army kids your classmates, then as now, meant spending great balefuls of time with rural Heartlanders and Southerners. It meant having friends who blew whole weekends in paintball games with Vietnam vets. It meant that dumb kids brought hunting knives into school on a perilously regular basis. In a lot of ways, I was the odd man out back then, thanks largely to the fact that my parents were both academics, but my classmates often took precedence over the diktats of my tweedy home life. Even now, my parents like to tease me for using the word “dang” till I was 12.
In other words, I was never quite able to reinvent myself as an East Coaster, which is probably why, earlier this year, I fell for Barry Hannah. In an interview published in 2009, Wells Tower wrote that Hannah “drives people to fanaticism,” a statement which ranks with “banned for obscenity” in the realm of powerful endorsements. (Same goes for his line that “any one of Hannah’s sentences picked at random holds more hope and joy than the entire self-help section at the O’Hare Barnes and Noble.”) I read these hosannas and picked up High Lonesome with an urgency reserved for grave injuries. Within the space of three pages, I could see Hannah’s talent for odd phrasing: a role in a college play requires much “dramatic amplitude;” a slacker confesses that “through [him] runs an inveterate refractoriness, almost a will to lose;” and a young boy complains with a juvenile bitterness about the ravings of a “turkey-throated aunt.” Nobody can dismiss these as novel deployments of well-trod constructions and ideas. Instead, they’re signals of a dizzying new dialect, the language of a nation-state of one.
Although High Lonesome had sold me, I knew it was a late-career production. I wanted to see if Hannah’s first collection would hit me as hard as its successor. Unlike High Lonesome, Airships consists of stories so short they rival Donald Barthelme’s for brevity. They’re not as dour as the stories in High Lonesome, and their plotlines are far more calamitous, but the stories in Airships are built with the same knack for joyfully addlepated wordplay. In “Testimony of Pilot,” a young boy, a “violent experimental chemist,” learns “the sulfur, potassium nitrate and charcoal mixture for gunpowder” before his 11th birthday. In “Quo Vadis, Smut?”, vigilantes drink a bottle of gin contaminated with bits of glass. We learn that the glass flakes “burn constantly but do not kill.” In “Return to Return,” a stroke victim coughs out “lengths” of phlegm, and when he later shows up in a vision coupled carnally with a character’s mother, he appears in a cemetery “so [the stroke victim] won’t have far to fall when he explodes with fornication, the old infantryman of lust.”
Everything I quoted here points to a mind that knows the grotesque when it sees it. For Barry Hannah, all human beings, regardless of their station, find themselves inevitably pitched into a battle at birth. His violence is key to why I find his fiction seductive. When I read him, he calls me back, to a time not long ago that nevertheless seems distant, when the people I hung around didn’t care a whit about prestige or the bull of the thinking class. Their fathers were off in Bosnia, and they didn’t need our crap. It’s fitting that Hannah’s vagrants express this better than I can:
There is not even such a thing as a personal soul in many countries. The souls were dead already waiting for Marx, all he was was the final announcement. I am dying for you, I have had hell so you may carry on. Love me, every breathing motherfucker around me. I give you my lungs and heart to eat thereof. I taste like a sword.
More from A Year in Reading 2013
Don’t miss: A Year in Reading 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005
The good stuff: The Millions’ Notable articles
The motherlode: The Millions’ Books and Reviews
Like what you see? Learn about 5 insanely easy ways to Support The Millions, and follow The Millions on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr.
Happiness, Like Water, by Chinelo Okparanta — I was delighted to see her new story in The New Yorker a few weeks ago; I’d hate to see such a fine writer overlooked amid the clamors of splashier books. This collection knocked me out because the stories are quiet and understated and lucid and gather up their power almost without the reader realizing it, then they break your heart, just like that. Such subtle and open and strong writing.
I had the pleasure of taking a short, non-credit course at a local university solely on Go Down, Moses. The professor was a notable Faulkner scholar and it was a sublime experience. GDM is certainly an elevating work of art.
Love GO DOWN, MOSES. Right up there w/ ABSALOM, ABSALOM.
wondering if you knew that it appears okparanta’s new yorker story was almost entirely a piece of plagiarism from a a munro story that appeared in the magazine just three years ago. might want to take a look at this thread – pretty damn good investigation from internet readers.
http://mookseandgripes.com/reviews/2013/11/04/chinelo-okparanta-benji/comment-page-1/#comments
Alex – yeah but Okparanta went to Iowa, and so did Harding. In today’s sad literary landscape, backscratching takes priority over minor things like plagiarism.
Astute interneters also found similarities between many of the stories in Okparanta’s book and other short stories. Whether or not these qualify as outright plagiarism is debatable; what isn’t debatable is the fact that Okparanta doesn’t have an original thought in her noggin. Yet she gets published in the New Yorker, and has a story collection published (and gets praised by a Pulitzer-winning writer). This so succinctly, and so depressingly, summarizes the present state of American publishing.
I vote for this series to be re-titled The Year in Logrolling.
Paul, thanks for the shout-out to two great books. Go Down, Moses is one of my favorite Faulkner books–I’ve not thought of it in the terms you mention: “The Bear” carrying so much weight, the biblical similarities. Fascinating. Thinking of it in this way has also made me re-think that amazing chapter that happens in the middle of Swamplandia!–“The Dredgeman’s Revelation” colors everything around it, though it stands alone. Thank you! Also–thanks for mentioning Okparanta’s collection. It’s a wonderful, original collection. Her prose is so seemingly simple and understated, but in fact, it’s like a whispered scream. Beautiful. One of my favorites. As a matter of fact, I bought a copy for nearly all my friends (for Christmas)!
To Ed and Alex: Interesting. I’ve also read “Benji” and “Corrie,” and I really liked Benji better. I can see what Okparanta is doing, and I love it: It’s a homage, retold in order to place the story in Nigeria, and the story, being placed differently, with details unique to the country, changes as a result.
Writers “retell.” It isn’t plagiarism.
Here’s an interesting take on the issue and another as it relates to a Lorrie Moore story:
http://montclairsoci.blogspot.com/2006/10/magic-of-plagiarism-plagiarism-of.html
http://montclairsoci.blogspot.com/2012/05/acknowledgements.html
To me, the accusations directed at Moore are similar to the ones directed at Okparanta, and yet neither writer has done anything wrong. They are both writing homages. Moore has retold a story in order to set it in modern times and Okparant has retold a story in order to place it in a different setting. Both retellings change the stories, bring something new. It’s part of the writer’s art.
Perhaps a little more specific to the Okparanta / Lorrie Moore question of homage: http://paulettealden.com/blog/lorrie-moores-too-referential/ .
Cara – homage is one thing, but Okparanta copies phrases almost verbatim. That’s not homage, that’s plagiarism. And if it really was homage, Okparanta would have mentioned it in the New Yorker interview when the piece ran. She only mentioned it after readers called out the New Yorker. Pretty clear case of plagiarism.
The other question is why? Any writer worth a damn wants to forge their own path, tell stories in their own voice, say something new or in a new way. You really have that little to say that you have to rewrite someone else’s story? And why would any reader be interested in a writer who just rewrites other writers? That’s an exercise in an MFA class. Anyone that cares about the future of literary fiction needs to stand up against this kind of garbage, and instead seek out and promote original voices.
Oh and re: Moore, at least she is upfront about her “homage”. Still a completely useless piece of writing.
Interesting to note that these rewriters are MFA associated. Just another reason why writers need to spend less time in the classroom and more time in life.
Cara – you should red the very close, point-by-point analysis over on Mookse. I have no idea if you know Okparanta personally or not, but there is zero question–zero–that she ripped off Munro blatantly.
If you read the order of events laid out on the 260+ comment thread at Mookse, anyone but the blind can see what occurred there was not homage, not borrowing, not modeling – it was out and out theft and subsequent historical revisionism – The New Yorker should be called out for it, she should be called out for it, her agent should be called out for it.
There are a lot of writers out there who are not part of the farm system, who are original thinkers and who deserve the high praise and placement that writers like Okparanata routinely get. And after reading more of Okparanta, I agree with Ed – she hasn’t any original literary thought.
I worked in the field for ten years and it is, frankly, an orgy of mutual masturbation, tissue-wiping of the small of the back, ass-slapping and a clubby handshake – if you see a blurb, it is likely the author and blurber are carnally, academically, or socially acquainted. On the next ten books you pick up at the bookstore, get a notebook, take down the names of the blurbers and do a little internet sleuthing – 90 percent of blurbers will have done so because they have a previous relationship with the author and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be objective. The publishers might as well put Mom’s stamp of approval on the jacket.
I am a lover of good writing and it disgusts me to see how sycophantic all the literary darlings are. They should each engage in some serious autology and see what motivates them – to me it is not the work that does or the truth that can be told with a good story, but it is the same thing that motivates the pathological narcissist – love of one’s own image.
The whole thing with Okparanta is execrable and i am stunned that it has passed without TNY or her being held accountable.
Alex – the saddest thing about the whole TNY thing is that it hasn’t gotten more coverage. Look at what happened with Frey, Lehrer, etc. The so-called pre-eminent literary publication in the country publishes a ripoff of one of its own writers, refuses to address the issue, then secretly amends the author interview to play the “homage” card and backdates the amendment to make it appear that it ran with the original piece and not after readers called them out. This story is so rich – beyond the plagiarism angle, you’ve got the institutional obfuscation angle.
So why isn’t this getting more “pub”?
The only thing I can think of is: NOBODY CARES.
That’s the scary part of this. This is how culturally irrelevant fiction has become, when the majority of what gets published are plotless, voiceless, totally unoriginal stories about comfortable white upper-middle class professionals (writers and professors, mostly) doing a lot of thinking.
It appears the New Yorker become basically an MFA alumni newsletter. And no writer is going to call plagiarism on a writer they may need to lean on for a blurb down the road, right?
Ryan – agreed, no one seems to care – not only about fiction (to me the pinnacle of not only emotional, psychological and character evaluation for humankind, but also the most effective information transfer vehicle from era to era – Dickens, Dostoevsky, Upton Sinclair, Steinbeck and on and on and on have reflected and taught us more about the social pulse as it RELATES to the facts. After all, historical facts mean squat without our marinating in them), but also no one seems to care about blatant theft – in art, business or politics. And I’m not talking about the kind of theft that all artists should engage in – Steal From Everyone and create something new. That is, after all, the exact point of art. To create in your book or painting or piece of music a fresh recipe that utilizes known and recognizable things in life (stealing, if you will) and whips up a fresh morsel on life.
What I am talking about and what you seem to agree with is the kind of theft that petty, small-minded, unoriginal artists engage in because they want to be a Writer or Painter of Musician. I swear – and I may very well be underestimating this – for every 100 stories or novels that I begin, I finish maybe one. This is because the writing is so derivative, the story so tired, the relationship to language so cavalier that it induces in me a physical reaction akin to some nasty bile spitup that burns your throat. And by start, I mean I give a novel three pages, tops. Henry James said long ago that the only rule of fiction that he could be certain was universal was that it be entertaining – that can mean a lot, I know, but an entertainment and an important story can be and often are both well-written, considered, and original. If the writer hasn’t grabbed you in three pages in a novel, or in one or two sentences in a story, they have failed.
I am really hoping that someone smart and unafraid and with a national readership (Matt Taibbi, are you listening?) takes this instance with Okparanta to put some hot coals under the feet of the gatekeepers at TNY. What Okparanta did is not only ethically foul, it has implications that may be too abstract for a legal judgment, but very well could be grounds for contract voiding – not only for her books, but for her teaching gigs, speaking gigs, etc. I talk about this stuff to non-writers – and writers, too – and very few even give it three seconds of thought before dismissing it as meaningless and ubiquitous. I am astonished because something like Okparanta’s story becomes the record and it pisses me off that record has been smudged.
I’m a passionate student and writer of fiction as stories are the way I navigate, evaluate and come to love the world of my creative mind and stories also help me embrace more penetratingly the world I wander and work in. I think all of the readers here at The Millions feel similarly and people who read TNY probably do too. But the suits who run TNY don’t give a f*ck about anything but demographics and ad sales. I guess they also don’t care about offending someone of Munro’s stature by having a fiction staff that so clearly erred and wouldn’t pass muster as a high-school yearbook student management team.
Another issue with TNY that really boils me is the fact that it has become a regular advertising segment for upcoming novels by excerpting them (NOT a short story, TNY eds). I love both forms, but if you’re going to reduce a 600-page novel into a 3500 word story, tell us you are providing, essentially, a paid billboard for the novel. This is becoming more and more of a problem with a lot of respected and self-described publishers of short stories – One Story recently published an excerpt of Elizabeth Gilbert’s new novel and it is in the magazine’s public and highly cited code that they celebrate and publish ONLY short stories. I canceled my subscription to One Story the moment I saw Gilbert’s piece running. You can be sure her agent, her publiciist, maybe even her BFF paid good money to get that placement and they took it to help pay the bills. Why in the hell does Elizabeth Gilbert, who is worth upwards of $25M from Eat, Pray, Love Product, need to take the space where dozens of other writers who are exceptional and struggling for readership would give a kidney for? Oh, I forgot – Gilbert was marketed as a woman who traipsed off to her exotic countries as a lark, heartbroken and with the same resources as someone who quit a job on a dime and left with little in the bank – people forget that she was able to take that trip because of a six-figure advance.
Good god could I go on – but it breaks me up after I read a story that blows me away and I know that poor author who is ten times the writer of blankety blank will likely, at some point in their life, write less and less because it is just not feasible to spend decades doing something that is not properly remunerative – in both dollars and readership.
Publishing is such a nasty field and I’ve seen the sausage made from many vantage points along the line. Hard to stomach.
I have an acquaintance attending Iowa right now and just heard back from her after the first semester – the report reinforces everything you can imagine – I suspect that if she plays her cards right, she’ll have some incandescent blurbs from people who just maybe, might have, quickly skimmed the book. Then they can tick off the IOU as paid and call it a day.