Although it is not my favorite I do not dislike the memoir genre, I just see it as a writers minefield full of dangerous traps for those who would rush into it and strewn with the remains of hubristic writers whose enthusiasm for the craft outmeasured their skill. The school of memoirists of which Anne Lamott is a member sees an intrinsic value in writing from life experience no matter what that experience has been. The act of writing itself is seen as a theraputic act which will help the writer come to terms with the events he or she discusses, and there is a perception that all life experience no matter how mundane can be a source of good writing if it is done from the heart. Memoirists who discuss family tragedies and the poignant and personal details of their journey are viewed by this school as brave for having the courage to share their experience.
I disagree with this school of thought on both these issues. While Lamott's school of memoirists and I are in agreement that even the most commonplace details of life can produce good writing the memoirist school places undue emphasis on the process at the expense of the finished product and it shows in their writing which is, I think, indulgent. I think that exploiting a tragedy in your life for writing material is a delicate issue, it is not forbidden but must be done carefully in order to stay inside the boundaries of good taste. As an example of a memoirist who has forgotten this lesson and whose writing has suffered as a result I point to Augesten Burroughs, whose recent work might as well be titled "Even more relatives who were mean to me that I forgot to mention in earlier books." Also, the world has enough confessional accounts of substance abuse to get us through the next century. If that is the story you feel compelled to share it is maybe it is better for us all if you don't.
The Sedaris piece titled "What I learned" is an example of a piece of memoir that I liked. Beyond the funny, engaging writing this memoir worked because Sedaris it was not mean spirited and did not communicate the desperate need for approval which some memoirs do. Sedaris discusses the nuances of his relationship with his parents without attacking them, when he critisises his family he does so with playful jabs rather than with juvenile histrionics. The reader is never completely sure if Sedaris is serious and this adds to the writings effect. Sedaris plays with truth rather than give a factual account of his post college life and the result is more interesting and perhaps more truthful. These are tricks that a writer can use to prevent his or her memoir from falling into the traps associated with this difficult genre.
After reading your review, I almost feel a little guilty having enjoyed Anne Lamott's writing in "Bird By Bird". I don't know if the purpose of writing is to be therapeutic or to convey an idea or if there even is an overall purpose, but I suspect that if there is one, then to entertain must be part of it. I was not aware of the memoirist title, but from the description you give, I think that you may be mistaken about her intent in providing such insight into her life throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteI loved some of the images she creates in her lust to share. For example, a group of children gathered around drinking iced sugar water and pretending it's lemonade moved was vivid and helped me to connect with the author on a level I believe I otherwise might not have. I don't know if that image is a real one from her past, but I understand the point that she is trying to make. Take these instances from life, and use them to add reality to your work. That strikes me differently than what I understand your interpretation of memoirist is: let me tell you about my life. I could be wrong, but that's the impression she left me with.
I like your keen observation of "What I learned". The fact that he managed to provide a past account on his life without belittling or attacking his parents is quite impressive.
ReplyDelete