" /> storytelling: December 2004 Archives

take me to the front page of the tttt weblog | back to the current weblog

« November 2004 | Main | January 2005 »

December 30, 2004

transitions

My father's sister Irene, who was born on July 17, 1910, died yesterday morning. Now ofthe ten children in that family, only Aunt Dot is left.

Old people die, and while Aunt Irene's death wasn't unexpected, it still gives me a lot to think about. My father, who died in 1985, was very close to Irene. If I believed in heaven, I'd imagine them all sitting around a big kitchen table. My father along with Joe, Katie, Fran, Ebby, Lou, Ann, and Freddy and their spouses, all arguing about food and how was it that Aunt Fran got such a bee in her bonnet, and whether it was 1933 or 1934 the photo of Grandma Rose in the blue dress was taken.

Right now they'd be making room for Irene. Somebody, probably Aunt Ann, would hand her a dish of manigot and braciol', and somebody else would remark on how ma never cooked it that way, sausage in the sauce, whose idea was that? My father and his brothers would be telling dirty jokes with the punch lines in Italian, and Aunt Kate would do her duty by smacking the worst offenders with the flat of her hand on the back of the head, or, if she's feeling benevolent, a wooden spoon. Somebody would tell the story of the day pa almost shot the horse for spooking and spilling a whole day's worth of berry picking except ma locked him out of the house so he couldn't get his gun.

Somebody else -- I imagine my father doing this -- would say how nice it is to see Irene, and ask for news of the rest of us. I'd like to be a part of that conversation, someday. Not too soon.

December 29, 2004

perspective

I've got some kind of flu. Somebody (but who?) calls this particular brand of misery the galloping crud. Given the headlines the last few days, I hesitate to even mention this. This morning the death toll in Asia topped 55,000. Susan Sontag died. Lynch mobs in Brazil. Life is fragile. I am very fortunate.

I have some ideas for posts here on various writing topics, which I will try to start jotting down later today.

December 26, 2004

brothers

You know how I'm having trouble with this new character, to the point that even his name was being withheld from me?

Usually something like that is symptomatic of a deeper problem, specfically that I don't know the character well enough to be writing about him or her. This time the character finally clicked (just yesterday) because I realized that the key relationship in his life was not so much his father, but his brother. Does anybody remember Paul Savard, the doctor who worked with Hannah at the Almshouse in Manhattan? This is his half brother. That's all I'm going to tell you about him at this point, beyond the fact that his formal first name is Jean-Batiste.

The key to this person is his relationship to his father and brother, and the key to that I found encapsulated in the story of Damon and Pythias -- who weren't brothers, but close friends (this summary from Bartleby):

In a Greek legend, two friends who were enormously loyal to each other. When the tyrannical ruler of their city condemned Pythias to death, Pythias pleaded for time to go home and put his affairs in order. Damon agreed to stay and die in place of Pythias if Pythias did not return by the time of the execution. Pythias was delayed, and Damon prepared to be executed. Pythias arrived just in time to save Damon. The ruler was so impressed by their friendship that he let them both live. Damon and Pythias symbolize devotion between friends.
This struck me, when I came across it, as a more complex and interesting version of the Prodigal Son, and it patterns exactly to what had been cooking in the back of my brain about the Savard family (father, and two sons). I have generally stayed away from examining the relationship between brothers, because it is such a challenge for me to understand that particular kind of connection. This time, it can't be avoided and thus my reluctance or fear was getting in the way. Not that words will flow like water now that I've figured out what's going on, but they will move.

December 25, 2004

sustaining thoughts

sent to me by Jeanette, an old friend:
So the America I loved still exists, if not in the White House or the Supreme Court or the Senate or the House of Representatives or the media.

The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries."

Kurt Vonnegut

The whole essay ("I love you, Madame Librarian") is here at In These Times.

December 23, 2004

Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg

A well written essay is a wondrous thing. I have a short list of essays that made such an impact on me that I re-read them on a regular basis. Top on that list is Malcolm Gladwell's Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg which you, too, can read, right: here. The tag line for this article (written in 1999) is She's a grandmother, she lives in a big house in Chicago, and you've never heard of her. Does she run the world?

This essay made me (1) laugh out loud a number of times -- although the subject is not in itself humorous; and (2) jumpy with ideas, which is actually a good thing.

Gladwell has a website where most of his essays are available to be read. He also has a new book coming out called BLINK: The power of thinking without thinking. Have a look at it, because this kind of thoughtful writing really needs support.

And let me know if you read about Lois. Because I love to talk about this stuff.

December 21, 2004

getting caught up

I wish I were.

I did write today for a couple hours and actually produced some pages. One of the things that's slowing me down just now is a major character, just introduced, who has refused to tell me what he wants to be called. He has a formal first name but it's not what his friends call him. Every suggestion I make, he disdains. Partially this is a cultural issue: I just don't know him well enough yet, so we're in a catch-22. This is a good guy, a native speaker of a couple different languages (including Cajun French and English). A name suggested to me (by Jennet, of all people) was Ranger, but that doesn't work, either, because she's not American enough to know all the strange associations that go along with that one. Let me ask you: what associations do you have for the term Redbone? It's got quite a complex and checkered history, but I'm just wondering about first reactions.

Otherwise we're having the solstice party this evening and of course that's taking up time and energy. I have never been so behind before. Not one batch of cookies baked yet, and let me tell you: the girlchild is not happy about that. Also, I wanted to get particular dog beds for the puppy boys (called snuggle balls) and I can't find them anywhere. Well, okay. I can, but they were ten dollars over suggested retail and forget that.

Boring, eh? So no more of those awful details. Just tell me what jumps to mind (if anything) when you hear "Redbone."

December 17, 2004

things to eat

As I am in a not-good place in terms of writing, and as the holidays are upon us, I have all kinds of wonderful ways to procrastinate and keep so busy that my guilt index stays relatively low. No words written today. Yet. But, ran a hundred errands. Because the Winter Solstice is almost here, and that's the one holiday I really love. The pendulum starts to swing the other way, and every day there's a few minutes more of light. I'm not a Pagan (way too organized a religion for me) or a Druid (ditto) or anything you could put a name to (although I do love the names of the old festivals. Beltane. Lammas. There's just something so solid and pleasing about them).

Now I do have to go write. Wish me luck.

PS Please note: not one four letter word in this whole post. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, or not.

December 15, 2004

That-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken-Of : more sex!!!

The radiant Robyn Bender sent me this link to a LiveJournal discussion about word choice in sex scenes, by way of the ever observant Rydra Wong. The discussion is specifically about fanfic, but it's relevant to all kinds of fiction.

Yoyotan (the person who wrote this LiveJournal entry) doesn't like it when people use words like cock and fuck in writing sex scenes. He makes a strong statement about it. I find this interesting because I was just posting, a few days ago, about my own hesitation to use the word cock, why I chose to use it, and how that particular word is borderline taboo in the same way that the image of male frontal nudity is borderline taboo in film. In the LJ thread somebody touched on this same idea by coining "That-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken-Of." I sense a new word game on the horizon.

Yoyotan's post got a big response. For example to this statement

I'm sorry if anyone feels insulted.
Ladybirdsleeps replied
Well, then, it's probably a good idea not to call people actually like those words underage virgins who failed sex ed and don't know how to use a thesaurus. Because, yanno, that's kind of insulting.
It's an interesting discussion, but you actually have to follow all the threads to get the full impact. There's a really odd bit where the anti-cock contingent seems to be claiming that a novel which dares to venture into the realm of That-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken-Of can't get published.
> >I think it's great you're trying to get your novel published with all the venacular intact. If you succeed, I think that will be an amazing accomplishment
To which the pro-cock caucus (sorry. who could resist?) responds
>> Are you familiar with, oh, off the top of my head, now: Irvine Welch? James Ellroy?
My sense is that some people read very ... narrowly, but don't even realize it. Which makes this whole discussion not only amusing, but vaguely sad.

google me

Because of a comment somebody left here, I went and googled "writing sex scenes" and found that this weblog came up first. Which surprised me, especially as when I check Technorati (which I do every two weeks or so) it tells me how alone I am in the blogosphere. Just me and my small horde of readers, or so I thought. But there I am at the top of the google list.

I've wondered abut Technorati before, how accurate it might be. Links I know about don't show up. Not that this is important, mind you. What is important: this scene that's stuck in my craw like that chicken bone in Mama Cass's throat. I've spent a good amount of time today trying to get rid of it, but have made only minimal progress.

You know sometimes how you swallow a pill and it feels like it's stuck right there at the top of your chest? You can feel the outline of it from the inside -- and that's not the plan. You are not supposed to feel your insides, especially not the parameters of your insides from the inside, at any time. The exception being advanced pregnancy, when you can't help but notice when the kid punches your kidneys or spleen repeatedly until he or she has a reasonably comfortable pillow.

At any rate, that aspirin or Alleve or whatever (except Tylenol, no Tylenol in this house, ever, because well, we need our livers intact) is sitting in your esophogus announcing its intention to set up housekeeping right there and you can't do anything but notice it. Can't work, can't sleep, nothing. I have consumed a half loaf of stale bread in the hope that it would take the reluctant pill down with it, I have consumed a gallon of water, grapes, grapes smeared in peanut butter (maybe the pill will stick, I was thinking, that's how desperate I was).

My point -- and I do have one -- is that this is how I sometimes feel (as I do today) about a scene that's only halfway where it's going and unwilling to move on and get it over with. Except in this case nothing helps, although I have tried eating vast quantities of chocolate in the hope that words and sentences and whole paragraphs might shift.

So that's the story for today. Back to work.

PS somebody mentioned, in the comments, that I don't always answer questions sent to me by readers. Which is true. Sometimes I don't now the answer, or can't tell you the answer. The same way I can't always answer my daughter's questions, because they are fake I'm-fifteen-and-you're-not questions like do you like torturing me? (really, how can any human being resist the obvious here, except by not answering at all?). So let me say this. If you have asked a question I haven't answered, remember: better you don't know.

December 13, 2004

I'm so proud

This sentence
That's where you get your latter-day Ed Wood cannon: Night of the Comet, Slipstream, Nemesis, Near Dark-- hell, pretty much every movie Tim Thomerson ever made was a fucking Jungian/Freudian masterwork of interpretive postmodern pre-apocalyptic anxiety.
was written by Joshua, a former student of mine, on his weblog. The guy can think and string words together at the same time, eh? The whole post is wonderful but this sentence made me giggle with delight.

invitations

asdfg's question:
Questions: When you set out on a new book, do you have an outline that you start with or do you just start somewhere and go in both directions or what? For a new character or for a old character that becomes more significant, do you develop something like a character profile for that person or just let him happen?
yes.

Okay so, it's a complicated question. The thing is, plot development and character development happen in different ways. Starting a new novel, I have a pretty good idea of major things that will happen and what the resolution will be, but no idea on how I'll get from A to B ... to Z. That happens in collaboration with the characters.

It's an interesting question about minor characters, from a couple of different directions. I find it hard not to pay attention to even the smallest character for a few minutes at least. I sometimes obsess about them, even knowing they are unlikely to show up again. Once in a while I love a minor character so much I want to make room for them in the next book, but never find a way. It's like making a new friend and not feeling sure enough of the friendship to call up and invite the person over for dinner. In Fire Along the Sky, I truly love Camille Maria de Rojas Santiago del Giglio (it was such fun naming her, even), who taught Jennet how to read tarot cards. I set her up in some detail because I'd like it if she showed up again, but now I have this sense that she's going to stay away. She declines the invitation.

Christian Wyndham (called Kit), the British army officer who interrogates Lily at the cabin on the border was also really interesting to me, and he does come back -- he shows up first thing in Queen of Swords. In a big way, to start with at least.

But of course, in novels like these with at least a hundred minor characters who flit in and out, 95% of them won't be coming back, and so I have to restrict myself in how much time I can spend with them. Sometimes I am surprised when a minor character shows up, crashes the party so to speak, but that doesn't happen often.

As far as character profiles are concerned, I should write them but I usually don't. I try to keep notes on major points (eye color, for example) but sometimes I mess up. Mr. Bennet -- the lawyer from Johnstown who advises Elizabeth in the first novel in the series? He comes back in a couple of the novels including Fire Along the Sky, but I should have consulted my notes on him because he has blue eyes in one scene and brown ones in another. I just noticed that listening to the book on tape. At this point I just try to remember that kind of flub when it comes time to make corrections for the soft cover edition.

This leads me to a question I got by email from Sue in Australia:

I have just started reading "Fire Along the Sky" and because it has been quite a while since I read "Lake in the Clouds" I had to go back and look at it to refresh my memory. In the list of characters for "Fire Along the Sky" is Charlie Leblanc and six sons by his first wife (i.e. Molly) and five daughters by Becca. However when I looked at "Lake in the Clouds" I found on page 466 when his first daughter was born that he had four sons. The daughter dies at only 2 days old and we hear on page 601 that Molly has died. So I'm wondering why you listed six sons by Molly when she only had four when she died.I wasn't looking for discrepancies but this seems to be one.- Am I right? I would be interested to know for sure.
Don't you just hate it when you lose track of the kids?

The simple truth is, I wasn't keeping a close enough eye on Charlie and the details got away from me. Something else to be fixed in the next edition. Now, Sue was very nice in the way she brought this to my attention, and I'm glad she did. Sometimes, though, I get email from readers who are less generous. As the guy who berated me soundly because Elizabeth saw an eagle with moss in its beak. Apparently, I conclude from his very sharply worded letter, I have not done my eagle research. Which was true, at that time. I have since come to see the error of my ways. Now I live in a part of the country where eagles are almost as common as gulls, and I have yet to see one with moss in its beak. But somehow I don't think that I could have put a dead fish in the eagle's beak in that scene. It wouldn't have worked.

December 11, 2004

on conflicting urges

My sense is -- and I could be wrong -- that the majority of serious novelists are introverts. People who aren't really comfortable in the middle of a crowd, but who thrive on standing off a little bit and observing (see the post on storiopaths). It's a kind of non-sexual voyeurism, maybe, this urge to see the world in terms of stories.

However. People who write novels for a living are dependent on the outside world. On agents, editors, publishers, marketing people, and most of all, readers. Further, given the situation in publishing, it's rare that an author can sit back and be confident that somebody else is going to make sure the novel gets into the public eye. Publishers don't spend a lot of money on marketing; the internet is full of stories from wailing authors on good books that sank beneath the waves without a peep because of low or no budget marketing plans.

Thus the conundrum. I am uncomfortable in public. I suffer huge anxiety when I have to read publically (though strangely enough, when I was a professor I could lecture to 300 students without a pang). I really don't like book tours. In spite of all these things, I still hold some part of the responsibility for making my work visible -- like it or not.

You might be wondering why I want to be invisible, but that's a very complex question, and one I'm not going to try to answer just now. What I can say is, this basic conflict between what is comfortable for me and my responsibilities towards my own work is something that has been addressed, at least in part, by this weblog.

When I started out, I had no idea if the weblog would make any difference in bringing readers to the books, or not. But I do get a lot of mail from readers and a a lot of questions, and so I thought there was some room for me to reach out, in this limited way. If a few more people became aware of the books, great. If not, it was (and remains) an interesting experience. I had no illusions that somehow writing a few paragraphs a day would cause the novels to shoot up the best seller list, and I am just as happy to have people who like the blog but have no interest in the novels come by. When I am out in public and I have to answer questions about my books, I always make sure to let people know that I will not be in the least upset if they never read any of my work. And I really, truly mean that.

Which is part of the problem. I am happy when somebody writes to say they read the books and have enjoyed them, but I don't worry much about sales, except in a fairly concrete way. Such as: hey, there's something else I can do for a living when the books stop selling or I stop writing. Clearly, I am not a born salesperson.

So your answers about how you got here are enlightening and interesting, in an academic sort of way. I'm really not looking for unconditional praise or global assurances. I may never write a book that gets to the best seller list, and while I can't say that's fine -- of course I'd like that, who wouldn't? I can say that I'm easy if it doesn't happen.

I'll get back to the unanswered questions from last week next time.

December 10, 2004

a multipart question: for you

I'm really beat (nope, not going to bore you with the details) but I'm awake enough to ask a question that's been on my mind for a while:

1. Did you read one or more of my books before you found your way to this weblog? If the answer is no, please go on to the next question. If the answer is yes, please skip to (5)

2. Had you ever heard of my books before you found your way to this website? If the answer is no, please go on to the next question.

3. If you found your way here never having heard of me or the books, have you since read one or more of them? If the answer is no, please go on to the next question.

4. Multiple choice.
(a) I probably won't read any of your stories; just not my thing. I hang around though because you amuse me or annoy me.
(b) I actually want to read one of them, just haven't got around to it.
(c) I'm still trying to figure out why anybody would read your books at all.
(d) other

5. How did you first find this site?

------------

Anybody who has time and energy enough to answer, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

UPDATED TO ADD: I should have asked this question some time ago, the answers are so interesting. Keep 'em coming, please -- and don't apologize about length. if you've got something to say, please do.

December 9, 2004

the difficulty of telling the truth in sex scenes

So, if you'll look down to the post just before this one, you'll see a longish excerpt from Lake in the Clouds. You should go read that first, I'll wait.

Now that you're back, I should say first that these two linked sex scenes were terrifically hard to write. Probably the most difficult few pages ever, because they are so very different from what I usually produce, and because the subject matter is so sensitive. This is the first time I ever wrote about male/male sex (cue the discussion on gender barriers, times two), and I was writing it from the POV of a very unsympathetic female observer. How to make it clear that her feelings are her own, and not mine? That was the challenge: make her observations work on more than one level. The so-called unreliable narrator, but one step removed.

The first question is, did I need to make this so explicit? Did I need the scene at all? And in this case I can say without hesitation that I did need it. I needed it to establish things about the two men, who have up to this point been unsympathetic to the extreme. The scene was meant to turn them into more complex characters, ones capable of love and affection and joy, men who lived day by day in hiding, because the culture they lived in allowed them no other choice. One of them is still a terrible human being and the other one is still ineffectual and self-absorbed, but now they are, if I've done my job right, more.

Because Jemima is the one observing, and we are in her head, we see what she sees. She is a hard young woman -- she has not had an easy life -- but also a very intelligent one with a strong survival instinct. What she sees shocks her, but first and foremost she takes it, as she takes everything that comes her way, as an opportunity to improve her lot in life. The acts that shock and disgust her also intrigue her intellectually and she starts processing this new data in comparison to what she has already heard or been taught. Another young woman might have gone to tell what she had seen, but Jemima depends on herself alone, and she's less interested in the public good or the souls of the men than she is in her own well being.

The chance to put this knew knowledge to use presents itself immediately, in the person of Liam Kirby. For Jemima, whose life has been one disappointment after another, this is like winning the Trifecta. She can not turn away from this opportunity, and so she seduces Liam. In the scene before this one he has suffered a terrible disappointment of his own, and he is especially weak at this moment.

So now the question: is this scene between Liam and Jemima necessary? I can tell you what I hoped to accomplish with it; whether or not I succeeded is a question for readers to answer.

This is the first time I wrote a sex scene between people who don't care for each other, which puts it in direct opposition to the scene between Isaiah Kuick and Ambrose Dye, who do love each other. That was a challenge of the first order, and I tried to approach it by staying clinical. What Liam and Jemima do together has to do with violence, force, pain, retribution, hate, disappointment. There is nothing soft or tender or affectionate here: the verbs are hard, the results are bloody and sticky and unpleasant. The fact that Jemima accepts the pain and even welcomes it says a great deal about her, as Liam's willingness to hurt her says a lot about him.

I find these two related scenes disturbing, still, when I read them, but I hope that they are disturbing in a productive way, one that moves the story along and makes these characters grow. That was my intent, at any rate.

I find it relatively easy to write a sex scene between people who love and respect each other; it's not so hard to put myself in their POVs. It's much harder to live inside Jemima's head here, both when she's observing the men and then when she is with Liam. I do understand her, but I find it hard to tolerate her in my consciousness for any period of time. Telling the truth about Jemima is exhausting, mostly, I have to admit, because she makes me sad.

So there you have it. Do with it what you will.

Excerpt: Lake in the Clouds - Rated R

I'm posting this excerpt separately from my comments about writing it, for simple ease of navigation. The scene begins at the end of a wedding party where Jemima Southern -- a woman most of my readers love to hate, but one for whom I have a grudging respect -- has been disappointed in her plans to attract her employer's son (Isaiah Kuick), or at least an old childhood companion who is in love with a young woman Jemima hates and fears. His name is Liam Kirby.

Rated R for explicit sexual situations. Go away if you're under eighteen. Shoo.

This excerpt from Lake in the Clouds is copyright Sara Donati. All Rights Reserved.


The children disappeared into the kitchen, the men into the study. Jemima stood and watched the dance, took note of people coming and going. Nathaniel Bonner came in and Peter Dubonnet went out. And Isaiah Kuick standing at the door, staring at her plain as day. All night she had been waiting for him to take note and there he was, looking at her like she was a pony with a broken leg, a creature with no good use in this world.

A great weariness came over Jemima, all of her anger washing out of her, draining away like life's blood. She went into the hall and opened the front door. Stood there for a moment feeling the chill of an April night, saw the sky crowded with stars like unblinking eyes. She saw a cloak hanging on a nail and took it, not caring very much who it belonged to, and then she stepped off the porch and walked away toward the barn.

She found an empty stall with a scattering of old hay. With the cloak of boiled wool wrapped around her Jemima fell into an uneasy sleep; dreamed of her dead mother and woke to the sound of whispering. For a moment Jemima was confused enough to imagine herself in the bed she had shared with her brothers, and then the faint smells of milk and leather and animals long gone reminded her where she was, and why.

But she hadn't dreamed the voices.

"All winter," said Isaiah Kuick. "All the long winter."

"Too long." The overseer's voice, but Jemima had never heard it like this, low and soft. "I thought you'd never give me the sign."

She tried to calm the beating of her heart, to still the breath that stirred the hay beneath her cheek. Listening with all her concentration to the sound of mouths touching wetly. She was a child again in the dark, unable to sleep through the noise from the next bed. Every night, as sure as the coming sunrise there would be the rustling of bedclothes and sharp words from her father as he pulled and prodded and climbed on top of her mother. His hoarse grunts and her whimpering, like a small animal in a trap; the creaking of the ropes that held the tick mattress, the whole bedstead rocking, on and on and on.

She could not remember her parents ever kissing; she herself had never kissed another human being, but still Jemima knew very well what she was hearing. She blinked hard, willed her eyes to focus. Turned her head just enough to look into the stall across the way, where under an unshuttered window filled with moonlight she could just make out two shapes, twisting and turning as clothing fell away to the floor. And then the line of a naked back bent forward, the sound of flesh on flesh, a sharp gasp.

"Oh Christ, oh Christ."

"Shhhhh." A whisper, soft and softer. "Shhhh."

Jemima Southern trusted nothing more than her own eyes, and what she saw was men mating like dogs. What she heard was the talk of lovers who knew each other well, tender words of encouragement, sweet Lord yes, and more, and oh please. Isaiah Kuick on hands and knees and Dye bent over him, using his backside like other men used a woman's front. She could make out the white of Kuick's leg, his arm, his head hung low, mouth open and gasping, in pain or pleasure or both. Dye's free hand busy between Kuick's legs, stroking in rhythm with the pumping of his hips. And then he arched his back and put his face up to the starlight and Jemima saw the most unbelievable and strange thing of all: the man she knew as the overseer -- distrustful, cold, mean unto death -- that man was gone. The face Jemima saw in the starlight was alive in a way so overwhelming and personal that she must close her eyes, blinded for a moment by a stunned and wordless joy that was not meant for her to see. When she looked again, the two men were still joined together, gently rocking.

This was no strange dream, but a gift. Unexpected treasure, as solid as gold.

Now they're done, she thought. Now they'll go. She needed time to sort out the thoughts that raced through her head: her father's voice as he read from the bible, fragments of verses she had not understood but had memorized because he required it of her: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly; and the Widow's voice, heathens and papists and eternal damnation and Mr. Gathercole, I do hope you'll read from Leviticus today, we are all in need of a consuming fire.

The widow. Jemima imagined the widow in her chair by the window, always watching, ever keen to uncover transgressions against God and herself. Jemima felt the stab of her embroidery needle, heard that thin voice, so sure of her place in the world, so sure of her son. The way she looked at him, the plans she had for him. Pride cometh before the fall. Jemima mouthed the words silently and imagined the widow's face if she were to walk into this barn and see the overseer using her precious Isaiah like a whore. Lucy Kuick's only son was a sodomite.

The men were talking face to face, kissing now and then. Their voices were lower and Jemima couldn't make out much of what they said to each other, but the tone was clear enough, gentle and loving and almost more of a shock than what come before. Then Dye slid down Isaiah's belly and Jemima watched, not so much disgusted or outraged as she knew she should be, but simply amazed and more than a little curious to see a man put his head between another man's legs to suckle like a baby at a full teat. The pleasure it gave both of them was obvious and a mystery too, and she studied it carefully while another part of her mind raced backwards through the months she had schemed to get Isaiah into her bed.

She understood now that her open door meant nothing to him, would never mean anything to him. But that didn't matter, not any more. Once she had hoped to lie underneath him as many times as it took for him to get a child on her, but tonight he had given her something better. Now he could deny her nothing at all.

Then they were standing again, brushing the hay from each other's clothes, hands lingering here and there. Talking days, and times, and opportunities.

Thursday, said Dye, and Kuick laughed.

As if either of us could wait that long.

It was the first time Jemima had ever heard him really laugh, without any trace of mockery.

When they were gone she lay for a while, making plans. Twenty minutes, perhaps a half an hour she had watched them and in that short time her whole life had changed. So deep was she in this knowledge that the sound of footsteps took her by surprise and she froze, thinking they were coming back to start again. If she had stood up too soon and they had found her here, what then? Dye would simply kill her; she knew that without doubt.

But it was Liam Kirby, and he was alone. She knew him by his size and the gleam of his hair in the light of the stars. He stood without moving for a long minute, his hands at his sides.

He was waiting for Hannah, and that made perfect sense: Jemima must watch Liam take Hannah as the overseer had taken Isaiah Kuick; she must listen to the things he would say to her, love talk, sweet words. This was the price she would have to pay for the advantage she had been given, and it was bitter.

After a long time Jemima began to realize that Hannah was not coming. He was here alone, and hiding. Hannah had refused him, and he had sought out this place to lick his wounds. For a moment Jemima was stunned by the depths of her good fortune, and then she whispered his name.

He started, turned sharply. "What are you doing in here?"

"Waiting for you." Her fingers moved to slip her sleeves off her shoulders, letting her breasts spill out as she moved toward him.

He stepped back, but his eyes were fixed on the white flesh, the dark of her nipples. "No," he said. "No."

She reached out and touched him, ran a finger down the front of his breeches as she had seen Isaiah Kuick do not a half hour ago. He jerked, clasped her hand to stop it, held it still. Sucked in breath between teeth clenched hard.

"But think, Liam." His gaze was fixed on her breasts, and he still held her hand against him. She could feel his flesh stirring, his breath on her skin. "Nobody will ever know."

She freed herself, turned her back to him as she raised her skirts high. "You don't have to look at my face," she said, feeling the chill air on her bare flesh. "You don't have to look at me at all. You can pretend I'm...somebody else."

He was silent as she went down on all fours with her skirts rucked up around her waist, her knees spread to expose her sex, her forehead bedded on her crossed arms. Then she heard him groan and he was behind her, loosening his breeches. When he knelt between her legs she felt him shaking, felt the heat of his damp flesh, the soft and hard of him. But he hesitated and she held her breath, understanding somehow that at this moment the wrong word would ruin everything.

He said, "I cain't marry you if you get with child."

"Why, that's all right," said Jemima, rocking her hips backwards, brushing against him and feeling him jerk. "That don't matter none, Liam. I'm going to marry Isaiah Kuick, anyway."

He cursed and came to her, leaning forward to grasp a breast in one hand while he supported himself with the other, shoving and prodding to part reluctant flesh, pushing hard and harder still while Jemima bit her forearm to keep from crying out. With a curse he let go of her breast to grasp her buttocks, angling her hips up and spreading her flesh with his fingers to ease his way. Now when he thrust, once and then again, she could not hold back her scream; one last thrust and with that he tore her flesh and seated himself deep inside her.

"Damn you," he groaned. "Damn you to hell."

In spite of the pain she smiled to herself. Wiggled and clenched at him with every muscle until he groaned again and gave in to it. She welcomed the invasion and the burn and the pull and push, his strong hands, his roughness, his teeth pressing into the tender flesh of her neck as he worked his hips, thrusting as if he wanted to climb inside of her. Jemima clenched her teeth against the roaring pain and rocked her hips to meet him, heard him grunt in surprise and pleasure and then the trembling overtook him and he emptied himself inside her in hard little jerks.

He was gasping and muttering to himself, damn you damn you damn you. But he was still hard, his flesh trembling wet.

Jemima wiggled and flipped over on her back. She lifted her hips and wound her legs around his waist to pull him back inside her. She would keep him on top of her all night, use her hands and her mouth if she had to, put what she had learned from the sodomites to good use. Make him forget Hannah Bonner and the nameless wife, milk him like a cow, make him spill his seed until he was dry.

After tonight he would never forget her, would never dare ignore her again. When Liam Kirby walked past her he would remember this, remember the way they had been joined in sweat and blood and seed and sin.

One way or another she would marry the widow's only son, but it would be easier if she was with child. She tried to count the days in her head but the heavy heat of Liam rutting inside her got in the way; he pushed her legs apart roughly and then, still not satisfied, he put a hand under her right knee and lifted it, pressed it to her shoulder so that she was splayed open to him. With the next thrust he touched a spot so deep inside her she must cry out again, in pain and surprise and approval. He covered her, pressed her into the hay with his weight, threatened to split her in half, and she gloried in it; put her hands on his buttocks and pressed him home.

If he didn't get a bastard on her this time, she would seek him out again, and how could he refuse? Then Isaiah would claim what Liam had put inside her as his own, or he would pay the consequences.


By the time Jemima made her way home the moon had set and a frost had come down, so that she needed to take the handrail on the bridge or risk falling. She was limping a little, her thighs raw and bruised and sticky, and deep inside a burning itch. Her shoulders and breasts and belly stung where he had marked her with his teeth and the scrape of his beard: she had driven him hard, and he had paid in kind. Every muscle hurt, but for once in her life Jemima Southern was satisfied. She had come to the wedding party to get the best of one of them, Liam Kirby or Isaiah Kuick, and now she had them both. Them, and Hannah Bonner too.

------- end excerpt

December 8, 2004

goose, gander, sauce

So I went and pulled a sex scene from one of my novels to see if I can talk in any constructive way about how I put it together. I picked up Dawn on a Distant Shore and paged through it with the idea that I'd use the first sex scene I came across. And here it is, at the bottom of this post. It's set on a merchantman ship which is docked in the St. Lawrence.

It's odd, reading this scene for process. I wrote it a good long time ago, maybe eight years now. The whole novel was a challenge for a lot of reasons -- Bantam bought it before I wrote a single word, because they wanted a sequel to Into the Wilderness. I had no idea if I could pull it off; I didn't know if I could keep the characters interesting. And other things were going on in my life, some of them very traumatic. We moved across country, and it was during the time I was writing this book that I made the decision to leave academia and give up tenure.

Now that I've made all these excuses, the question: does this scene work?

It does, mostly, even eight years later. If I were going to rewrite it now, I would tighten it up a little bit, but mostly I'd leave it intact. There's a playfulness about it that gives way to intensity, and both those things work for me. Elizabeth's thought processes feel right -- she's still the upper class English daughter who was never supposed to marry. She has learned many things about herself since she married Nathaniel, one of them being that she likes sex precisely because she has to give up some control; but some things come hard to her and always will. So she's aroused but cautious; she likes being convinced, won over, seduced.

There are some good details -- the shock of bare skin pressed to cold window glass, the images in the glass, the way the nightgown is folded up to her waist.

This scene actually goes much farther than is normal for the sex scenes I write. I almost always stop before things get really athletic. This time I let the story roll on, but I can't remember what the process was -- I don't think there was one, at least not a conscious one. Probably the hardest decision in this scene was whether or not to use the work cock, which sounded right to my ear and still, I worried that it would strike a false note, that my editor would think it too much, or the readers. But it was the only possible word, and so I did use it, and the editor never even queried, and thus there it is on the printed page, that four letter word you see so rarely. Like male frontal nudity on film, the word cock generally is avoided in mainstream novels. Even in romance novels -- especially, I would have to say, in romance novels.

This final question, then: could this scene have been replaced with "and then they had sex" without hurting the storyline? Does it do anything to move the narrative and the characterizations along? It does give us one more step forward in Elizabeth's evolution, her separation from her upbringing. Beyond that, I think this is the most playful Nathaniel has ever been, so that indicates something about him, given the context of this scene. It's not hugely significant, though, so maybe it could have been left out; that's something I can't really say, as I have little perspective on the issue in this case.

So there you have it, a piecemeal look at a sex scene I wrote. To be precise: this one.

The splash of oars brought her up out of a half doze, heart pounding. A bateaux or a whaleboat, for a canoe would not make so much noise. She heard men's voices, but could not make out the language and so she put her face closer to the glass. The boat had already moved on out of sight. On the other shore cook fires sputtered like random coals in a cold hearth.

Behind her a door opened. There was a murmuring of voices: Moncrieff, and Nathaniel. Elizabeth stilled, tucking her bare feet up under herself; she had no wish to entertain Angus Moncrieff in her nightdress. After a moment the door opened and closed again.

She waited, and heard nothing. Just when she thought it might be safe to slip out, Nathaniel's voice came to her, not five inches away.

"Boots," he said. "You'd make a god-awful spy."

Elizabeth yelped in surprise and tried to rise from the cushions, only to find it was suddenly impossible to negotiate her feet out from underneath herself. But it was too late: Nathaniel had already come inside, the draperies falling to a close. They were almost eye to eye, for she was kneeling on the high bench in front of him. The gentle twitching at the corner of his mouth pleased her not at all.

"Why would I make such a terrible spy?" she demanded.

"Because your shawl was hanging out there for all the world to see. That's why Moncrieff took off so quick."

She pulled the end of the offending garment free of the drapery and wrapped it more securely around herself. "It is just as well, Nathaniel. I am not dressed to receive visitors."

"So I see." He lowered his voice and leaned forward as if to tell her a secret. "I dinna think he wad ha' minded, ava. He's got a verra keen e'e for the lasses, does oor Angus. And ye're lookin' aye fine this evenin', Mrs. Bonner, wi' yer hair aa soft an' curled aboot yer bonnie face."

Elizabeth let out a high hoot of laughter. "I had no idea you were such a good mimic."

One brow shot up. "Ah larned guid Scots at ma mither's knee, woman, an' Ah'll thank ye no' tae forgit it."

She choked back a laugh. "Is that so? And what other talents have you been hiding from me then?"

He blinked at her thoughtfully as one finger began to skate down the front of her nightdress. "Talents?" His own voice now, as strong and purposeful as the flick of a finger which opened first one button, and then another. "I can't think of any, off hand. Except maybe this knack I've got for making you blush." Three more buttons, and the white linen gaped open from neck to waist.

"See?"

He was tugging at her shawl. She tugged back, but without effect. "Nathaniel! Perhaps this demonstration should wait—"

But he cut her off neatly, catching her up against him, his arm like a vise at her waist so that she could feel him from knee to shoulder. A flush started in the pit of her stomach and curled up like smoke. Oh yes, he had that knack. If she let him start, she would not be able to stop him — or herself.

She turned her head so that his mouth caught her cheek. "It grieves me to say this, Nathaniel, but this is not the time nor the place."

"And why not?" His fingers were tangled in her hair where it fell to the small of her back, jerking every nerve into near painful wakefulness.

"Your father and Robbie—"

"Hip-deep in Pickering's gun collection and not about to come back here, Boots. I'll have to fetch them when Bears shows up."

"Yes, exactly. Runs-from-Bears and Will should be back any moment."

"If that's all you're worried about," Nathaniel said hoarsely. "Then don't. We'll be the first to see the canoe from here."

She struggled harder. "Yes, and they will see us. The whole river can see us here." With a wiggle she was out of his arms. She turned, putting her hands against the casement to steady herself. "Look!"

The river was empty. Ships rocked gently at docks for as far as they could see, and not a light burned in any of them.

"Aye, Boots. I'm looking."

His hands were everywhere. She tried to turn back to him but he held her still with his body, his mouth at her ear. "Tell me you don't want me."

"I don't want you."

"Liar." His hand slipped inside her nightdress, fingers moving restlessly.

"Yes, yes, yes. I am a liar," she said, struggling against him in vain. "But oh Nathaniel, the windows—"

"Damn the windows," he muttered. In one motion he pulled the open nightdress down over her shoulders, pressing her forward, bare breasts to the cold glass so that she jerked with the shock of it. Then he let her go and stripped before she could gather her thoughts — did she want this? dear God, yes, but the windows — and then he was there again.

He crowded up behind her and put his mouth to her neck, breathing a slow litany of promises into her ear while his hands moved over her, folding the hem of her nightdress up around her waist. The words held her in a trance, startling, powerful words. He could coax water from stone with this voice of his, but she was not stone, nothing like stone. Against the cleft of her buttocks his cock was proof enough of that. His hands insistent on her thighs; all was lost.

"The windows," she muttered. To be cursed both with mind and heart. And with eyes: for there they were, faint reflections in the window glass, coupling for themselves and for all the world.

"We mustn't."

He paused, his mouth hovering over her shoulder. "Don't you want me, Elizabeth?"

"I want you, yes," she hissed. Because she could not lie to him, or herself. "But I can't, I can't."

"Oh but you can, darlin." And so he showed her, bent her to his will, and to her own. Covered her and filled her, his mouth on her neck, one arm like a pillar, supporting both of them. The other arm was around her waist, pulling her up and back to meet him. And even the world gave in, retreated and left nothing behind but Nathaniel, the long muscles of his thighs tensed behind her, the heat and the heft of him, his body deep in hers and all around her and still he struggled, they struggled together to bring him closer.

And in the window glass she watched it all, saw their faces torn apart with furious need and stitched back together thrust by thrust. His cheek pressed against her temple and his eyes flashing with the beat of her heart, ready to burst for him. She watched it happen. She would remember it as long as she lived.

gender barrier?

In the last few days there has been a lot of traffic to the earlier series of posts about writing sex scenes (due primarily to the discussion on Making Light, I'm sure). If you haven't read them and would like to, here are the links:

Writing Sex Scenes :: Part One: Humor :: Part Two: Lyricism :: Part Three: Stream of Consciousness :: Part Four: NC-17 :: Part Five: Where Things Go Wrong :: Part Six: Where Things Go Wrong(er) :: Part Seven: Good Bad-Sex :: Part Eight: More Good Bad-Sex :: Part Nine: Falling in Love :: Part Ten: Less or More

This paragraph is from Part Five: Where Things Go Wrong:

Genitalia, erogenous zones and specific acts aren't the only place where the unmotivated, uncomfortable or lazy writer will resort to cliches. There is a list of words that have been so overused that they should be retired, maybe permanently. Silken thighs, raven tresses, sensual anything -- these phrases have been stripped of any meaning they might have once had. Now they are nothing more than placeholders, and funny placeholders, at that. When the author resorts to these terms, you really have come to the place where it would be possible -- and preferable -- to substitute "and then they had sex" for the whole extended scene.
Dave commented:
People do sometimes point out that cliches are cliches because they worked -- people used them.

I think these are a different sort of cliche.

And if my manhood ever did any throbbing, I'd contact a doctor. How many of these things come from trying to cross some gender barrier.

If I understand correctly, Dave thinks that it's not quite right to call overused sexual terms cliches. Generally it is agreed that a term gets to be a cliche because it is so apt, so spot on, so appropriate, that everybody immediately recognizes its value and uses it... and if you look at it like that, then yes, "throbbing manhood" is not a cliche. It's just an example of really bad word choice, but one that still got picked up and reused.

Does this have anything to do with grossing gender boundaries? It's the old debate:

can a man write a woman's POV? can a woman write a man's?
And of course sex complicates this question, as it does everything. If a woman writer resorts to using 'throbbing manhood' is that because she's a poor writer, or because she doesn't really understand (and thus can't convey) the male's experience of sex?

I think the answer is fairly straight forward, because there are examples out there of women who write sex scenes well from either POV (and the opposite case, of course, as well). It is possible to do, but writing the opposite POV is a particular kind of challenge. A writer who uses 'throbbing manhood' has declined to meet the challenge or do the work, and has settled for a phrase that is -- if not a cliche -- just damn awful.

How does this kind of thing happen? Somebody who shouldn't have been writing a sex scene in the first place wasn't happy with the sober sound of the word penis, but cock or dick were too evocative. Manhood wasn't quite right either, so an adjective was put into play, and thus the tragedy ensued.

All this reminds me of one of the rules of thumb you'll hear in most every creative writing classroom: never use a quarter word when a nickle word will do. Further: a quarter word plus an adjective = trouble.

December 7, 2004

insecurity

Kaylea's question:
Odd question maybe, but Im a new journalist and I am just discovering this anxiety myself: Do you ever - even at this stage of your success - worry about what people are going to think about the way you worded a sentance, a phrase or how you create an image? Does it ever slow you down, or are you so confident now that you dont need to have to those "aw, that was crap *delete delete delete*" moments?
Nope, it never gets easy. I wish I could tell you there was some magic point at which you understand exactly how things work and never doubt yourself again. What I can tell you is this: if you ever get to the point where you stop doubting yourself, you are probably writing below your ability. I have never run into a writer who isn't insecure in a variety of ways. Maybe I've run into one or two who claim to be absolutely confident and without qualms, but in those cases I'm highly suspicious.

It's hard work. It's really hard work, but like most things, that's what makes it worthwhile.

December 6, 2004

storiopaths r us

This entry on storiopathy is why the blogosphere can be such a good thing. I found the author (Mike) and his blog (The Corpuscle) through comments at Making Light.

You'll have to read it to figure out what he means by storiopath, and then, if you're anything like me, you'll want to know a lot more about Sophie Calle (she's all over the web; see for example here and here) and about Mike, too -- although he's more elusive. Maybe I'm a storiopath, too. I hope (not? so?).

This excerpt from the blog entry gives you an idea of what the term might mean.

[Calle] seems, pardon the coinage, a storiopath -- a Nosy Parker quite insensible to the everyday norms and conventions of standard gossipry. It's normal to be curious about our fellow beings. It's normal to seek to satisfy that curiosity. To a point.

She seems almost oppressed by her need for stories. At one point, she asked her mother to hire a private detective to document her (that is, Sophie Calle's) daily routine. She didn't want to be aware that her story was being documented, but of course she could not help but know it was being documented. This is storytelling run amok. Certainly you could make the argument that this was a "piece", but it seems to me that it is more than that.

But then by now the careful reader will have guessed I would think that. By now it should be obvious to the careful reader that this particular post is more about my storiopathy than Sophie Calle's.

I predict meetings. Hi, my name is Sara and I'm a storiopath.

writing sex (again), fanfic, slash, and making light

Teresa Nielsen Hayden (of Making Light) has posted a longish entry on writing about sex, in fanfic and out of it. Mostly she's considering Ellen Fremedon's LiveJournal entry on slash shock, but TNH also points back in this direction for my series of entries on writing sex, and our own Robyn Bender gets quoted (as well she should; the comments are as important as the entries themselves). The whole discussion has raised the question (again) of the relative value of fanfic, which I have written about at length, here.

I do realize that I never really finished that line of inquiry. I should have written about the sex scenes in my own novels, and the thought process that gets me there. Which I may, still, if I can get up the courage. Because it is actually harder to write about the process of writing such scenes than to write the scenes themselves.

In the meantime, yes, Gabriel Oak was named after Bathsheba Everdene's true love in Far from the Madding Crowd. I love Hardy.

December 5, 2004

more questions: Gabriel Oak, and playful language

Revonda asked on the (defunct) forum boards:

Are we going to find out the meaning of Gabriel's notation from MacBeth under the picture he drew of Elizabeth's mother? I haven't read MacBeth in years, not since I attempted to teach it to 9th graders who just couldn't understand why the characters talked "so funny." So, I'm rereading it now--in an attempt to unravel the clue.
Now see, I'd say that's going beyond the call of duty. I'm very impressed that Revonda should go re-read MacBeth just to figure out my little hint. I'm hoping in the meantime she's read Fire Along the Sky, which will answer her question (at least in part). Because of course I can't come out and tell you; what's the fun in that? And to turn the tables: anybody know where I got the name Gabriel Oak? It's a tribute to a particular character in a particular novel.

Pam had a few questions, which I'll now try to take in bite sized bits:

Waddaya think of mixed metaphors or invented euphemisms that don't work? Wordplay, I guess. Is it pretentious, irreverent, or is it essential to the development of our language? Also - and this is personal (so I'll post it on a blog, hah)- I just returned to work from a mat leave and have found I'm now responsible to write articles for the company magazine. How do you handle criticism from an editor you barely know - or is that better than one you do know? Should I get to know her better? Have you addressed this before, and if so - please point so I can click. Keep up the good fight.
Mixed metaphors and wordplay are hard to do well, and mostly have to be restricted to very limited use in dialogue. Remember this basic rule: you're creating a fiction bubble, and drawing attention to the language itself is like throwing a dart at that bubble.

You've got a character who wallows in malapropisms, you may make the reader pay attention to the wrong things. I know this problem because my father was an ace when it came to this stuff, and I'm always tempted to use his malapropisms when I write about him -- but usually they don't work.

Now, if you're talking about wordplay off the page, in the spoken language -- of course. Language is always flexing its muscle, changing, growing. We play with language as we use it. All good and necessary. My motto is, play with your morphology, see what new words pop up. I kept track of new coinages when I was a faculty member. One of my favorites was babe-age as in "Check out the babe-age!" I don't think that one has stuck in general usage, but there are other new words being bandied about that will. Jump in, it's fun.

As to working with a new editor: As this is non-fiction you're going to be writing, there's less room for you to beat your chest and announce with great drama that you are an artist. You will have to figure out the tone of the publication and the culture of the place that produces it, and yes, you need to get to know the editor better. Just sit down and have a conversation. Ask him or her how they like to go about editing, if they have any conventions you should know about, what they look for in a well written piece. Stick to talking about work related writing, if you can.

December 1, 2004

jumping, and readers

This post has been edited for clarity.

Jacqui asked two questions. I'm answering the second question first.

I think you might be going to a "little" get together in California. So ... my question is, how was it? (as I'm assuming you'll read this when you get back).
THIS is how it was. Click on the photo to get a larger version.

Observe the guy reading Fire Along the Sky. (And look! He jumped to the last page first!)

While you can't see me, I was sitting right next to him. He was there oh, about five minutes or so until he went off to be cheerful elsewhere. So Jacqui, I had a great weekend in California, and five minutes of that weekend were especially memorable.

Next question:

Actually this one is just a repeat of a question I had on the discussion board (getting from A to B). How do you move your action along without it reading either forced, vague, stilted or full of unnecessary detail? you have just had your characters do A and you want them to do B, but what about the in between?

To start with, you have to remember the difference between story and plot.

Story is what happens; plot is the artful arrangement of what happened into a narrative whole.
A police report provides a list of observations and facts, but if you're going to spin a story out of that, you'll have to do some rearrangement. Decide what to tell first, what to keep back, which scenes need to be direct, which can be told otherwise.

Consider this: Anton is playing a game of catch with his daughter Gigi and thinking about leaving his wife Maud; when Gigi runs off to say hello to a neighbor he goes into the house and finds Maud sitting staring out a window, holding an egg in her hand. Why an egg, you ask. I'm not sure, but she insists.

So here are some of the things you've got to be thinking about to tell this story: You need the right details to make the scene come alive (the softball is unraveling at the seams, there's a canker sore at the corner of Anton's mouth that Maud can't bear to look at, the radio is tuned to NPR and keeps sliding off into static.) You need to physically move Anton and Maud through space. You need to track their thoughts. You need to record their conversation.

But you don't need everything: you need the right things. Here's the question: do you make us walk with Anton from the garden into the house, or do you stop one scene and then start again when he's in the kitchen? Do we need to stand by and listen as Anton tells his daughter where he's going, or when she needs to come in, or to put her bike away? When you make this transition, do you leave Anton's head and jump into Maud's?

This is the kind of thing that lesser-experienced writers have a huge amount of problem with. I read a lot of work by people who haven't developed an ear for what to leave out. This kind of writer forgets to make a distinction between what's important to the story, and what I think of as work product.

As the author, I visualize Anton doing a lot of stuff that I don't tell you about, because it would distract you from what's important. A character, going about his or her day, does a million things (opens doors, ties his or her shoes, goes to the bathroom, etc etc etc). So really, as you set out to put something down you have to ask yourself this this question:

Does it move the story along?
and if the answer is no, get rid of it. Another question to ask is: if I jump here (forward in time, to someplace else in the story, to another character's POV) can I take the reader with me without signposts?

Anton stopping in the kitchen to pet the cat doesn't move the story along; it's just distracting. Anton stopping off in the bathroom doesn't either, unless while he's in there he discovers an open bottle of pills or something else that moves the story along. We don't need to see him put his feet one in front of the other.

Of course, there are bits that contribute to the story in subtle ways that you may want to keep, but mostly the every day things do not belong on the page. This is a complex answer, but I hope it provides some kind of insight. Lemme know.