More Thoughts on Videos and Books

Musing upon Kim McDougall’s video for NO MARRIAGES IN HEAVEN, I reflected upon her photo of a gray-haired man as Dr. Fell—evidently the best photo she had to represent the black-haired character--and decided the man in the picture could well represent my character. However, as  I was writing the novel, my imagination fastened upon actor Victor Jory’s portrayal of the villainous Jeb Torrance in THE FUGITIVE KIND (a 1960 adaption of Tennessee Williams’ play ORPHEUS DESCENDING).  I also reflected that readers who had not seen the film or do not remember Jory, or even those who do, would have a somewhat different image of Dr. Fell, none really “more correct” than the others.   In other words in reading, we allow our imaginations leeway in responding to the author’s words, so that none of us pictures the same Macbeth.   Here we have another way authors and readers become collaborators. British critic John Carey provides a fine discussion of this aspect of reading in his book WHAT GOOD ARE THE ARTS?

About the Video of No Marriages in Heaven

I hope that by now you have been able to see my video on Facebook, advertising my new novel No Marriages in Heaven. Kim Dougall has done a fine job of catching the spirit of the story. Of course, she has to use copyright free photos, music, and film clips. Neither she nor I can afford to hire actors. Hence some discrepancies appear between the figures on the screen and the characters in my story. For instance, Dr. Fell has black hair in my pages but is gray-haired in the photo. Her picture of Earl Hollo is not quite a representation of  how I imagine him but close enough to be meaningful. I do not know where Kim got the film clip of Maggie before my heroine was shot, nor do I know what that the little wisp of smoke-like substance that flutters before her is , but this clip contains an figure that resembles Maggie and captures the feeling of the scene well. Hence, I recommend Kim’s work highly if you wish to have a video made. Her firm’s name is Castelane. It can found on the Internet under that name.

Writers and Readers as Collaborators, Part 2.

To Say Exactly What I Mean

Perhaps this goal can never be fully performed, since in literary criticism one is dealing with the intricacies of language and the complexities of the human mind.  But I thought a few additional comments might clarify my last post on readers and writers as collaborators.  Forgive me for drawing on one of my own works, my Civil War novel set in Kentucky I Pray the Lord My Soul to Keep, but I believe it suggests what I mean.  Jeremiah Manningham flees from the Battle of Fort Donelson. Stunned by his cowardice and the bloody horrors of war, he retires to lead a monk-like existence, brooding about his character and the nature of God.  Later he learns that Jerry Manning, a rebel guerilla, who could be his brother, has been captured by the Northern forces.  Jeremiah travels to the jail cell to conduct a makeshift communion service for Jerry, using wine and household bread. A devout man borrowed the novel from some friends to take along on a vacation. Upon returning, he told me that he had enjoyed and profoundly been moved by the novel, especially by Jeremiah’s believing that he had a heavenly ordained mission to perform. I thanked him, glad of his response.  Sometime later, without mentioning my novel, I asked my clergyman at the time whether a communion administered by an unordained celebrant would be valid. His answer was prompt and unambiguous: No.  Communion had to be administered by an ordained member of the clergy. I do not know whether he read the novel. If so, he might have seen episode as presenting a pathetic mock ritual, or, even while holding this belief, he could have been moved by Jeremiah’s good will.  A non-Christian could have read the scene with disgust, seeing the ritual as superstitious foolery. Or an atheist could have read these pages and, while not believing in the Holy Supper, could have enjoyed the scene because of what it reveals about Jeremiah’s character.  Each of these views would have validity for their particular holders. As to communion services being administered by a layman being valid, I have no certainly. But I believe God would approve of such devout emotions.   Later, at the end of the novel, when Jeremiah becomes the inheritor of the plantation, he makes a momentous decision that good-minded people today would applaud, but would it have been practicable or even beneficial in the long run during his era?  Does Jeremiah remain at the end of the novel a Jungian Holy Fool, or does he move up with Jungian ladder to become the Hero or savior figure?  I don’t know. I leave the decision to the reader. Of course, not all interpretations would be valid. If someone argued that Jeremiah was the devil in human form or an unwitting agent of the devil attempting to damn Jerry by administering an invalid service, I would shake my head. In a novel an interpretation cannot simply be superimposed upon the action. Most works of literature have pointers to suggest how certain events should be interpreted, but even sometimes skilled readers may disagree about the interpretations.  Nothing suggests that the devil is using Jeremiah to damn Jerry.