This Fall for the Book, I was lucky enough to attend the event hosted by James Swanson. Swanson has written Manhunt and Bloody Crimes; the former details the assassination of Lincoln and the chase for John Wilkes Booth, while the latter covers the attempted escape of Jefferson Davis and Lincoln’s funeral procession. While I have not read either book, I found Swanson to be a lively and thoroughly educated speaker. He opted not to read from his books, instead discussing his writing process and, if he felt the need to reference something, recalling it by memory.
There were three lessons I took away from Swanson’s presentation. The first would be perseverance. He described early on a conversation he had with his editor, where he went through three ideas before finally settling on Manhunt. In the first case, a well known author was already writing a book about the subject. In the second case, three authors were already on the case. And when he suggested the third option, his editor asked him if he really wanted to dedicate a year of his life researching such a dark subject. Eventually, he settled on Lincoln’s assassination, inspired partly by memorabilia passed down through his family. He then went on to talk about his writing style. Whereas some historical books are very good with facts but less so with chronology, Swanson deliberately made sure to keep a strict timeline in Manhunt; at one point, he even describes it as hour-by-hour. This not only keeps the action sensible, it helps to build an atmosphere of suspense so long as the reader allows themselves to suspend previous knowledge. Finally, Swanson emphasized an all encompassing view of his characters and setting. This makes the story more engaging, as readers can connect with both sides of the conflict.
There were some points that Swanson was a little briefer on. For one, he attempted to skirt his disagreements with critics, specifically those proponents of Mary Lincoln. On this, I felt that it was deliberate on his part, as it seemed as if he had locked horns with such partisans more times than he cared to remember. Also, his talk about his research process really struck me as vague. From his description of it, it seemed as disorganized (or haphazardly organized) as it was thorough. I got the feeling that you either got it or you didn’t when it came to his gathering and organization of relevant information.
One question I would pose comes as a result of Swanson’s focus on physical artifacts. He emphasized their high importance in his creative process, and how his initial outlines were typically written long hand. Does the engagement of all five senses during the writing process assists writers in creating better works of literature?
There were three lessons I took away from Swanson’s presentation. The first would be perseverance. He described early on a conversation he had with his editor, where he went through three ideas before finally settling on Manhunt. In the first case, a well known author was already writing a book about the subject. In the second case, three authors were already on the case. And when he suggested the third option, his editor asked him if he really wanted to dedicate a year of his life researching such a dark subject. Eventually, he settled on Lincoln’s assassination, inspired partly by memorabilia passed down through his family. He then went on to talk about his writing style. Whereas some historical books are very good with facts but less so with chronology, Swanson deliberately made sure to keep a strict timeline in Manhunt; at one point, he even describes it as hour-by-hour. This not only keeps the action sensible, it helps to build an atmosphere of suspense so long as the reader allows themselves to suspend previous knowledge. Finally, Swanson emphasized an all encompassing view of his characters and setting. This makes the story more engaging, as readers can connect with both sides of the conflict.
There were some points that Swanson was a little briefer on. For one, he attempted to skirt his disagreements with critics, specifically those proponents of Mary Lincoln. On this, I felt that it was deliberate on his part, as it seemed as if he had locked horns with such partisans more times than he cared to remember. Also, his talk about his research process really struck me as vague. From his description of it, it seemed as disorganized (or haphazardly organized) as it was thorough. I got the feeling that you either got it or you didn’t when it came to his gathering and organization of relevant information.
One question I would pose comes as a result of Swanson’s focus on physical artifacts. He emphasized their high importance in his creative process, and how his initial outlines were typically written long hand. Does the engagement of all five senses during the writing process assists writers in creating better works of literature?
No comments:
Post a Comment