Search This Blog

Friday, June 29, 2018

The DNA Of Writing In, Of, And For Appalachia

A few weeks ago I met a young writer in my local area who has already self-published one novel in a series  about an Appalachian mining family of about 1918 to 1925 or so.  They are working on a second novel in the series and, despite the best of religious based intentions, knows very little of Appalachian literature, sociology, culture, or history.  I recently read the first draft of that second novel, set in Harlan County in the coal mine organizing era and made some suggestions about the work, the author's intentions, and the need to know our subject matter if we hope to be successful as writers.  I actually wrote about 2,500 words in discussion of the manuscript, my responses to it, and my suggestions for a better book.  I will use the skeletal structure of that piece of writing in this blog post about writing in Appalachia.  A day or so after I sent the written response to that author, I saw a shared post of a short article from Appalachian author Chris Offutt  entitled "Why I Always Write About Appalachia" which I also sent to this young writer since some of our ideas about writing in Appalachia coincide.  

In my discussion of the young author's manuscript, I used a technique commonly used in the mental health and counseling fields called “Sandwiching”.  What this phrase means is that when we have some negative information to impart to anyone we also impart positive information and we “Sandwich” the negative between an opening and a closing segment of the discussion. That is supposed to lessen the strong emotional responses to the negative. I have always found in pursuing two collegiate degrees and another from an institution known as the Indiana College of Auctioneers that the teachers and professors who were able to teach me the most used some technique either base on or closely related to "Sandwiching" even if that particular teacher or professor had never heard of "Sandwiching" 
 
I have always thought that in the best books I have read in my life that plot is a lot like the double helix spiral structure of human DNA as discovered by Drs. Crick and Watson.  The double helix spiral of DNA is a twisting spiral of two long strands which wrap around each other and twist from one end to the other much like a pair of snakes or two strands of ribbon. Along each of these strands, there are chromosomes and genes for the entire length of the spiral which serve to make up the entire contents of the DNA structure.  An above average plot also works in much the same way.  In the plot we have parallel plots and subplots which progress for the length of the novel.  Along each of these “strands” of plot and subplot we also have characters, characterizations, key pieces of information, human interactions between characters, individual and group actions, and other elements and portrayals which advance the major plot or subplots throughout the length of a novel.  Perhaps the two greatest examples of such novels are “War And Peace” by Leo Tolstoy and “Grapes Of Wrath” by John Steinbeck.  Less well-developed but still wonderful novels are “Anna Karenina” by Tolstoy and “East Of Eden” by Steinbeck.  Much shorter, but equally wonderful novels, little masterpieces, are “Of Mice And Men” by Steinbeck and “One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.  They have a smaller double helix, a more direct plot with much less subplot, and far fewer strands of events, people, and characterizations along the way.  But they are also genuine masterpieces and among the greatest literature in the world. I have always believed that if Steinbeck and Tolstoy had only written "War And Peace", "Anna Karenina", "The Grapes Of Wrath", or "Of Mice And Men", both of them would have gone down in history as great writers. The majority of novels are not at this level.  I also believe that if we want to become not good but better than average writers trying to be great, we need to read the works of the absolute best writers all the time.  I try frequently, and I believe that every would-be writer should try, to read the works of the writers who have either won or been nominated for the greatest literary prizes in the world: the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award, the Hugo Award, the Man-Booker Prize, the Caldecott Medal, and the Newberry Medal.  As we read these books, we should also attempt to emulate the best elements of the work of these people.  I also recommend that people read the lesser known works of the same authors, not just their prize-winning masterpieces.  It is a wonderful way to learn about personal development of great writers. 

We should also attempt to write about the things we know best and to know the things we write about better than the people who are going to read our work. In his article about writing in Appalachia, Chris Offut concurs indirectly with that idea by saying "My 1992 book of short stories, Kentucky Straight, was the product of my own quest as a young writer for work that depicted the world I knew."  Instinctively, Offut knew that he needed to write about what he knew not what he wished he knew or what he fantasized about.  And that his where this other young writer went awry by trying to write about an area, a people, and a culture about which they knew little.   We should also attempt to write about the things we know best and to know the things we write about better than the people who are going to read our work.  That brings me to the most important words, in my opinion, in “Appalachian Values” by Loyal Jones.  On page10, in the introduction, we find these two simple, but profound sentences. “Whatever work is done in Appalachia must be based on the genuine needs as expressed by mountain people themselves.  Whatever work is done must be done with the recognition that Appalachian Culture is real and functioning.”  Those two sentences are one of the primary reasons I buy that book regularly and give it to people who express a desire to learn about, write about, or support Appalachian Culture.  Every word I write and publish about Appalachia is intended to live up to those two sentences.  In 2005, and again in 2006, myself and Dr. Heather Ambrose, PhD., one of my former professors, published articles through the American Counseling Association which were based strongly in those two sentences.  The first, “Clinical Supervision Of Counselors in Appalachia: A Culturally Appropriate Model” was delivered by us as an oral presentation at the 2005 National Convention of the ACA and published as a chapter in a book called “VISTAS 2005: Compelling Perspectives On Counseling”.  The other article in 2006, “Culturally Appropriate Counseling and Human Services in Appalachia: The Need and How to Address It” was published on the Internet, along with the first article, on the permanent ACA Internet resource site for professional counselors.  Both are frequently cited and quoted in the work of others who write about Appalachia.  Our article on “Culturally Appropriate Counseling And Human Services…” is quoted in a book called “Public Health In Appalachia Essays From The Clinic And The Field” (2014).  That chapter also cites and quotes the work of Loyal Jones in “Appalachian Values”.   Our other article, “Clinical Supervision Of Counselors…” is cited and used as the basis of much of an article called “Appalachia And Human Services” in “The Encyclopedia Of Human Services And Diversity” (2014).  I say all that, not necessarily to blow my own horn, but to impress on you that I know whereof I speak when I talk about the importance of writing about Appalachia and Appalachian people in a culturally appropriate and well-informed manner.  Both our articles are frequently quoted at the collegiate level in course materials and graduate degree level theses and dissertations.  Both are rooted strongly in the text of “Appalachian Values” and are well respected among other Appalachian writers, professors, and students.


When we write about the things, places, issues, and people we know and know best, we produce our best work.  Words flow naturally, smoothly, realistically.  We create characters who are living, breathing people who leap off our pages and our readers can recognize them and believe them.  Our plots flow naturally and the events we create are credible even to readers who also know the things, places, issues, and people we write about.  Chris Offutt addressed this issue of what happens when we write about the things we do not really know and understand in his article cited above by bringing up what I consider to be, and Offut may well also, the worst and most off base alleged "Appalachian" book written since Harry Caudill's "Night Comes To The Cumberlands", "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir Of A Family And Culture In Crisis" by J. D. Vance.  Offutt is discussing what he refers to as "...false accounts of Appalachian life..." This is what Offutt says about that book and, indirectly about this compulsion of people who write without cultural, historical, and sociological knowledge, especially in the field of Appalachian Studies.  "The most recent addition to these false accounts of Appalachian life is the widely read book Hillbilly Elegy, the author of which grew up in the decaying Rust Belt town of Middletown, Ohio. Nevertheless, he blames his personal difficulties on the culture of Appalachia. The ongoing dismissal [Depiction?] of Appalachians as “lazy, dangerous, and dumb,” is the same method of denying humanity that has been applied to African Americans, Indigenous Americans, and wave upon wave of immigrant to this country."  I had written about the Vance book on this blog on November 2, 2017, at the article linked above in this paragraph.  I had assessed the book in this manner as "a splenetic diatribe about Vance's extended family which he has attempted to pass off as a discussion of the great values he sees in his deeply flawed family while also attempting to attribute the familial flaws to the general culture of which they are a minor part."  Chris Offutt and I are, by no means, the only Appalachian writers who have assessed the Vance book with similar words.  I bring the book up now only to reinforce what I have said earlier about the need for writers, especially Appalachian writers to know what, whom, and where about which we are writing. 

We must understand, as writers, that when we are not writing science fiction or fantasy literature we have a moral obligation to understand our subject matter and to make every attempt to tell the truth.  Appalachia, the land we love, and all its other people deserves no less. 

No comments: