Interview
II
with
Heidi Julavits
Heidi
Julavits began writing her much-acclaimed debut, The Mineral Palace,
in 1996. In the years since, she went from finding an agent, to landing a
contract, to seeing her book printed both in hardcover and
paperback. Now, finishing her second novel, Julavits is faced with
the challenge of "living up" to her debut. We recently spoke
with her about these and other matters concerning her writing, as well as
her personal slant on the world of publishing.
failbetter: Let me see if we've got this right:
you began writing The Mineral Palace in 1996, got an agent in 1997,
got a publishing contract in 1998, saw the hardcover published to great
acclaim in 2000, and now, a few months before 2002, the paperback has been
released. So… are you the least bit tired of talking about The
Mineral Palace? Or, in spite of the lengthy process, do you get a rush
at every new step in the publication process?
Julavits: I
worry about answering this question honestly because I'm fear I'll
appear to be drumming up pity for something utterly unpitiable, or that I'm
trying to appear trendily self-lacerating to an arrogant degree
however....that said, it would be absolutely, if disgracefully, true to
admit that it has only been very recently that I've allowed myself to
enjoy anything associated with The Mineral Palace. My unarticulated
plan, I think, before publication, was to diminish the book's importance
so as to protect myself against the writerly inertia I'd seen effect so
many friends in the disrupting midst of publication, reviews, etc. In the
process of preventing my book from mattering too much to me, however, I
managed to make its very existence feel like a grueling liability. I
suspect I may have been fairly rude when people would try to compliment me
or congratulate me, and instead of graciously accepting the compliment, I
would wave a hand dismissively and make a Bell's palsy face until they
changed the subject. The idea was to render any criticisms, when they
came, less painful; I succeeded only in failing or refusing to ingest any
positive feedback, while obsessing over the few slights I received. It was
all a deeply misguided emotional management strategy which I do not,
ultimately recommend. The only good thing to come of it is that I did get
a lot of work done last year. But I imagine many writers face publication
with a healthy exuberance and still manage to do their work. Maybe next
time I'll be one of those writers.
failbetter:
There appears to be a lot of topics that are treated in an almost
metaphorical manner—from the weather, to marriage, to motherhood, to
even infanticide. What was your inspiration for these issues? Did the idea
of infanticide simply arise within the creation of the book, or was it
more a culminating idea that you maintained throughout the writing of the
book?
Julavits: I can't
locate the exact moment (in the conceptual stages) when I decided to
introduce the topic of infanticide into The Mineral Palace, even
though infanticide has been a prevailing moral and ethical preoccupation
of mine for at least a decade. I began writing the novel with an interest
in exploring a certain kind of companionable, arranged, early twentieth
century American marriage, and it wasn't until I was reading newspapers
from the time period (1930s) in the Pueblo library that I realized the
cultural and geographical milieu I had chosen seemed able to support this
earlier preoccupation, which I still had not yet fully followed to its
conclusion. My intellectual fascination with the topic stemmed from a comp
lit thesis I wrote in college, which was, reductively speaking, an
examination of "bad," poverty-stricken mothers from a fallen
imperialist class living in colonized countries. These misbehaved mothers
(in Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea; in Duras's The Sea Wall)
were not inferior caregivers without reason—they were responding to the
pressures of their financial situation, their isolation, and the shameful
thwarting of their social expectations (leading to what Rhys deemed
"white nigger" status). This sense of human, economic and
political failure, as well as the defeat of what is supposed to be a
biologically-ensured diad—the mother/child bond—guided me toward an
interest in even greater biological defeats by social circumstances. I
found it remarkable given the spate of prom-going teenagers stashing
newborns in bathroom wastebaskets that our papers didn't have a
constructive way to talk about these acts, save to demonize the girls who
committed them. There was no mention of the pressures these girls were
buckling beneath, and there was certainly no attempt to castigate the
absent fathers for any demonic failure of their biology. It was this
cultural need to believe that the maternal biological imperative is
actually an imperative, rather than a choice, that made me want to dig a
little deeper.
failbetter: Obviously, given the sense of realism
and attention to detail to the Pueblo dustbowl landscape, The Mineral
Palace must have taken a significant amount of research on your part.
All that hard work aside, we're much more curious about the origins for
Bena's obsession with numbers. What were they? Do you, as a writer, have
such obsessions or superstitions of your own?
Julavits: I
guess there are two ways to answer the numbers question, and over the past
year I've alternately defaulted to both. One answer makes me appear to
be mildly and harmlessly obsessive compulsive; the other answer highlights
the tragedy of my prematurely snubbed, potentially great career in
mathematics. I'll try to blend the two. The reasons for the numbers in
the book might be due to the fact that I was a heavy math kid—on the
math team, in this special six-year-long math program in which we did Venn
Diagrams and Logic in seventh grade and never really learned any of that
stuff you needed to know for the SATs, which turned out to reflect a
little badly on us. Anyhow. It was my conclusion, in ninth grade, that I
didn't want to be a math kid anymore. No doubt this decision was
partially due to the cowardly fact that, as a math kid, I was bussed to
school in the "special bus," which meant I disembarked with all
the learning disabled and over-abled kids, with whom I was friends, but
who, middle school being middle school, did little to enhance my overall
adolescent desirability. I decided, in ninth grade, that I wasn't going
to be a math kid anymore because it seemed high time to choose a specialty
among the things you liked to do and BECOME that species (book worm, math
geek, jock, etc). So I refused math in lieu of books (and basketball), and
this was possibly a shame because I really enjoyed math, but possibly not
a shame because I enjoyed books far more. Which is not to say I am a
novelist as a fashion statement, although you might have been cynically
able to argue that point when I was thirteen. ANYHOW, this is a long way
of saying that I guess I fixate on numbers in a sentimental fashion and
have transposed them in a more literary, fatefully conclusive manner onto
my own life and onto the stuff I write. I know this impulse is very
misguided, and so I think I was trying to write, in The Mineral Palace
specifically, about the way superstition can be a fancy thinking way to
shirk responsibility. It's actually AGAINST thinking, even though it
appears associative and clever. I've pretty much kicked the habit
myself, although I still find myself looking at the exact time on my
computer screen when it shuts down each day and run some sums to assess if
I've had a good day of writing or a bad day. This absolves you from the
sort of ponderous self examination you tend to indulge in interviews like
this, which can be nice.
failbetter: You
have identified your next work, Pitcairn's Mistake, as being much more of a comedy, quite a
departure from the darkness of The Mineral Palace. One clear difference
has been the setting: specifically, the new work takes place almost
entirely within the confines of an airplane. With such a setting change,
do you rely on your experience as a reader more than a writer to
successfully introduce a large number of characters within a small
confined setting? If so, whose works did you read to see how it has been
done in the past? Has this been a difficult transition, or perhaps a
creative relief with one novel under your belt? What new challenges have
accompanied this book?
Julavits: My
idea for the setting of my new novel was inspired in some ways,
conceptually speaking, by Donald Antrim's The Verificationist.
Donald accomplished what I have never been able to accomplish, namely to
write a short, intense book, rather than a long, intense but blathering
one. I decided one of the reasons he was able to do this was because he
confined himself, literally and figuratively (I am currently obsessed with
various representations of literal and figurative confinement, and am in
the process of putting together a "literature of confinement"
class—which would include, among other works, The Woman in the Dunes
by Abe, The Log of the SS Urguentine by Stanley Crawford, A
House for Mister Biswas by Naipaul, Woodcutters by Bernhard).
Donald's choice of confinement—man in perpetual bear hug, much like
Bernhard's man perpetually in wingback armchair—seemed to provide him
a restricted enough narrative landscape so that he could, subsequently, go
nuts. I decided that I relied too heavily on landscape in my first book to
do the lion's share of the psychological work—not that this was a
fault in the book, but rather it was a strength of mine that made me
subsequently weak in other ways. So deciding to set my entire book in an
airplane was the conceptual equivalent of tying my stronger hand behind my
back. That said, of course, I since have moved out of the airplane, and my
book is hardly, hardly, short. I also failed to follow my own
restrictions, and introduced a formal element, alternating each chapter
with confessionals by ancillary characters, which ends up blowing the
whole plane idea wide open. Of course, I am up against an entirely new set
of challenges now, given that the book is not only set on an airplane, it
features a hijacking. My choice to pursue this subject matter has been
severely shaken these past few weeks; also my choice to utilize terrorism
as a metaphor for family dynamics (my two main characters are sisters).
This is not to say that terrorism, due to its new immediacy, is beyond the
reach of metaphor; it is simply to say that the book I will write now,
versus the book I might have written, will necessarily be the product of a
very different mindset.
failbetter: Much
was made of your debut onto the literary scene landing with a legendary
publishing house editor and lucrative two book deal by the ripe old age of
thirty. But perhaps many readers do not know of the decade spent paying
your dues: the years of waitressing, the MFA classes at Columbia
University, and the several summers at the Bread Loaf Writers Conference.
Care to comment on the dues of the debut author?
Julavits: Yes,
indeed, let us unpack the cult of the "debut author." But first,
let me say that I did spend a decade paying my dues, and thank god—I
imagine if I had been around during the current willingness to sign up and
publish twenty-something year olds, I might have been unfortunate enough
to be one of those people, and I would have published a deeply, deeply
mediocre book (I'm somewhat of a late bloomer) that would have rendered
me, at the ripe age of 27, a tragic has-been. I guess I bridle a bit at
being constantly reminded of my "six figure two book deal,"
because from what I've seen of the publishing industry since I signed my
contract, my situation is hardly unique. I guess it IS fair to say that my
books were sold at the beginning of this excellent, if possibly perilous
trend of paying unknown, young literary writers a tidy sum for their
works-in-progress. I do worry, however, about future opportunities for all
these young "debut" writers, around whom so much fuss is
made. When I attended, as a finalist, the First Annual Literary
Lions Awards Ceremony ($10,000 awarded by the New York Public Library
Young Lions to a writer under 35 who has published a book in the last
year), I was made a wee bit uneasy by their charitable mission statement
due to my own well-publicized financial windfall. Admirable and generous
though it is to award money to a young novelist (who, according to the
mission statement, unlike more established authors, is confronting the
point of greatest strife and struggle in his or her career), I looked
around at my terribly accomplished co-finalists and realized that, while
we might have desperately needed this money a few years ago, now we were
all in fairly nice shape, for fiction writers, at least. I am not
criticizing the Young Lions for giving away money to young writers--nothing
could be less assailable. However, the experience made me really think
about the weird distribution of wealth in this industry, and the fact that
young debut writers are among the MOST fortunate and viable members of the
publishing world, rather than the least. Practically any young, talented
and, yes, photogenic writer can get a decent, if not obscenely decent, debut
opportunity because he or she is an unknown quantity, while some very
established, critically-acclaimed, New Yorker-celebrated literary writers
who do not have wildly impressive sales records, struggle to sell their
third or fourth books for more than a paltry sum. I very much hope the
publishing world is taking note of people like Chabon and Franzen, just to
take two very recent and very obvious examples, writers who performed
decently as youngsters but were clearly NOT at the peak of their powers
when they debuted all those years ago. I hope we will return to a
publishing milieu where accomplished writers are valued and paid
commensurably, because, frankly, not a lot of twenty-something or even
thirty-somethings will be operating at their maximum potential when their
first books appear, which is all simply to say that it would be shame if
the publishing industry suffers as the stock market did by overvaluing
feisty start-ups (someone could probably make a fairly direct cultural
link between these two phenomenons; I'm not sure I'm the critic to do it).
I imagine the books I'll be writing in my forties will my debut book look
like the badly translated novelization of a kung-fu movie.
That is my sincere hope, at least.
|