Strata: Caroline Leavitt

Caroline Leavitt has nine books to her credit, as well as a heap of awards.  Her latest novel is Girls in Trouble, and Pictures of You will be published this August.  She writes a regular column about books for The Boston Globe, and reviews books for People.  Caroline has many cool and important things to her credit, but what’s really interesting is her office.

What does your desk—the bare desk itself—look like, and how did you acquire it?

It’s a big long plankish sort of desk, with a light granite top and black (my favorite color) sides and it’s large enough so I (and my chaos) can really spread out. No drawers, but two small file cabinets on one side (black and white) and one huge black one on the left. I don’t remember where I found it, only that I knew it was perfect when I saw it and it is.

What’s on your desk?

My beloved Mac, speakers, a black reading light, various files, lotto tickets, books I’m reading for review, books I’m reading for pleasure or for blurbs, client manuscripts, my manuscript pages, my black phone, reading glasses and photographs of who I believe my characters to be (all staring at me) and a big yellow legal pad where I try to number the things I really should do in the order I should do them. Also, about six pens (at least one of them works and they all are Pilot Precise black rolling balls, extra fine), a nail file, a cell phone that I no longer use, my iPod mini, a stack of CDs, and a wooden monkey from the 1950s.

What do you wish wasn’t on your desk?

Clutter. I try to stem the chaos, but every day it creeps back up on me. The one time in my life I actually had a job, job, I got demerits on my reviews for having a messy desk. Obviously I have never changed!

Are there artifacts in your office that relate to your current project?

Yes, I have photographs of my characters posted up. I have some toys from the 1950s, the time period of my current novel in progress, including a one legged Malibu Barbie, an array of plastic purses from the 50s that my mother in law gave me, the wooden monkey, and old photographs are hanging up, too from that era.

Are there living things in your office (besides yourself)?

Sigh, there used to be a major living thing. For many years I shared my office with a very cranky and very adored 7″ jagged shell land tortoise I rescued from a pet shop. He was a great office mate, and I loved the clicking noises he made with his jaw, and I would often take a break to walk him outside. He had a huge glass tank that sat on a black table in the corner by the window. He died a few years ago, and I couldn’t bear to get another. Now I just have three overgrown, wildly loved plants.

What else surrounds you?

Behind me is a striped couch where I nap during the day if I get overwhelmed, a handmade wooden rocking chair I’ve had for about 20 years with a handmade quilt thrown over it, 75 snow domes on another filing cabinet—many of them have lost their water—and an elliptical trainer to exercise out stress. Also three big bookshelves filled with books, manuscripts, finger puppets, snow domes, plastic toys, a KitKat clock, and more. There’s my very own copy machine, a typewriter that no longer works (an artifact!), shelves full of CDs, and two big windows that look out on our postage-stamp sized urban backyard. I am thrilled to say I also have a fireplace in my office! It was hidden behind wood paneling when we bought out 1865 brick row house, and it was a wonderful discovery. So were the wide plank pine floors that were covered over in linoleum!

I also have a birdhouse on a shelf that a friend made me that is covered with comics about writers and a Mrs. Mustard’s Baby Faces book—one side has six big smiling baby faces, and the other side has six cranky babies. Depending on how I feel, I switch sides!

And I have two decks of tarot cards!

What’s on the walls?

I face a clock my husband gave me as a gift which has as its face a picture of the three of us dressed up like fools for Halloween (Jeff literally is dressed as a fool—a clown, I’m a devil in a blonde wig, and our son is Frankenstein). I have a framed drawing our son made when he was four that says, in his teacher’s handwriting, “That’s Mommy! She’s telling me a secret! I can’t tell you!” There is a black and white photo of me when I was 5 sitting on the porch with my mother, another photo of my mother’s Russian born parents and her 7 siblings, taken when she was 11 or so. I also have a huge bulletin board filled with photographs.

I have two talismans on the fireplace—a tin angel and a lucky charm from Israel to ward against the Evil Eye. On the far wall, I have two presents from my husband—one is a framed album cover he made with me on the cover and it says Caroline Leavitt Sings Turtle Songs, and he listed all the songs we’ve made up about the tortoise over the years. The companion one is a framed mock cover of Goldmine Magazine, a music magazine that my husband used to edit. It shows me and the tortoise and the headline reads Exclusive Interview: Startling new revelation of reptile abuse: “She holds me under the faucet to clean me!” claims tortoise.

What have you lost in your office that you really wish you could find?

I lost a beloved pair of earrings and I have no idea where they are, but I know they are here somewhere.

What tools do you write with?

My beloved Mac, a notepad to write notes, music blasting from Pandora!

Is anyone allowed to come in and clean?

That’s a great question. We used to have cleaning people come in but I would put big huge signs on my desk saying, PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH. They were allowed to dust the snow domes and clean the wood floor, but that was it!

T. Myers is a writer who hasn’t made much headway on cleaning her office, although she has located a pile of old sketchbooks, and her great-uncle Harvey’s fifty-year gold pass from the Illinois Central Railroad.

  • Share/Bookmark

“Be Just and If You Can’t Be Just, Be Arbitrary.”

Today is the birthday of William S. Burroughs: writer, performer, critic, painter, wife-shooter, cat-lover, addict, bunker-dweller.

That last point recently caught the attention of photographer Peter Ross. Throughout most of the ’70s Burroughs lived in The Bunker, a partially renovated YMCA locker room on New York’s Lower East Side. He moved out in 1981, and the poet John Giorno became the apartment’s caretaker. Ross, also a friend of Giorno’s, was drawn to the space and Burroughs’ undisturbed possessions. He photographed items that particularly moved him, returning each one to its resting place when he was done; the resulting collection, William Burroughs’ Stuff, is as odd and haunting as the man himself. In The Morning News, he notes:

I’ve spent a lot of time trying to find the right balance between people’s inner and outer identities, their common peacefulness…. But these items are very specific to one man, and a man with a public identity at that. His portrait has been made over and over, and it exists inside many heads: the man in the suit, in the city or the country, wearing a hat, serious, maybe holding a rifle, or talking to Mick Jagger. This is as close as I can ever get to that man.

For a remembrance that’s a bit less mythopoetical, there are always the “home movies” shot during the last years of his life in Lawrence, Kansas, with Burroughs looking a lot like your crotchety, if slightly drug-addled, great uncle. That is, if your great uncle ever had Patti Smith, Steve Buscemi, and Allen Ginsberg over for dinner.

(Photograph is “Shoes,” from William Burroughs’ Stuff, ©2009 Peter Ross.)

  • Share/Bookmark

TGIF

A couple of bookish links to brighten your Friday:

  • The Cleveland Plain Dealer offers a charming interview with Bill Watterson, the brains behind Calvin and Hobbes:

    Readers became friends with your characters, so understandably, they grieved — and are still grieving — when the strip ended. What would you like to tell them?

    This isn’t as hard to understand as people try to make it. By the end of 10 years, I’d said pretty much everything I had come there to say.
    It’s always better to leave the party early. If I had rolled along with the strip’s popularity and repeated myself for another five, 10 or 20 years, the people now “grieving” for “Calvin and Hobbes” would be wishing me dead and cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent.

  • And at the Millions, the first few lines of the eagerly anticipated (at least by me) new David Mitchell novel, The Thousand Autumns of Jacob De Zoet. I don’t want to spoil anything for anyone, but somehow a cacophany of frogs is involved. Here’s hoping this book is half as good as The Cloud Atlas.
    • Share/Bookmark

    Come to Where the Literature Is

    Just in case you didn’t notice that smoking makes you look cool back when you were 14, TankBooks wants to make sure you get the message. They’ve come out with a set of literary classics designed to look like cigarette packs— “one of the most successful pieces of packaging design in history.” The books come in such smooth and mellow blends as Joseph Conrad, Ernest Hemingway, Franz Kafka, Rudyard Kipling, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Leo Tolstoy, complete with foil wrapping and sealed in cellophane. Buy them singly or by the carton tin—they won’t go stale if you don’t read them right away.

    I’m not really sure what these are supposed to do other than look good. I can’t quite see myself pulling a pack from my purse, smacking it smartly on the heel of my hand three times, and shaking out a delicious postprandial Death of Ivan Ilyich anytime soon. If nothing else, it sends a weirdly mixed message to the young folk, and your teenager is just going to steal the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde box to keep his stash in.

    On the other hand, you wouldn’t have to keep your Literary Lites matchbooks in the bathroom anymore. Great books… blow some my way.

    • Share/Bookmark

    Pocket Review: The Magician’s Elephant by Kate DiCamillo

    It’s been a while since I had small fry around, and I’m not much in the habit of reading children’s or YA books these days. But back when I had a captive audience, I remember that we both liked our tales with some edge—a little dark humor, a little melancholy. To this day I can’t hear the words The Snowman without my eyes welling up automatically.

    A friend recently sent me Kate DiCamillo’s The Magician’s Elephant (Candlewick Press, 2009) and it was a treat, just the kind of thing that would have been a repeat bedtime read in our house. I very much appreciate her giving me a reason to pick it up. Literally: it’s a small, lovely book with an abstractly old-fashioned feel, and much care was taken with every element. The type and ornaments, the creamy paper stock, and Yoko Tanaka’s sweetly somber illustrations all add up to a beautiful object to hold.

    Set in an almost-familiar European village “at the end of the century before last,” The Magician’s Elephant is the story of Peter Augustus Duchene, a brave 10-year-old orphan boy being raised in a drafty attic by an old, slightly senile soldier with a wooden foot. One day a fortuneteller sets up her tent in the market square. In the spirit of good fables everywhere, for the price of the coin meant for that night’s dinner she tells Peter’s fortune, setting him off on a quest to find his long-lost sister Adele, whom he had thought dead. “You must follow the elephant,” the fortuneteller says, “She will lead you there.” When Peter objects, thinking she is making fun of him—there are no elephants in his little corner of 19th-century Europe, not even in a fairy tale—she tells him, “That is surely the truth, at least for now. But perhaps you have not noticed: the truth is forever changing.”

    Indeed, that night  a magician accidentally conjures up an elephant. It tumbles through the opera house ceiling, falling on a noblewoman and setting off a chain of events that are, of course, magical. But not only magical: also bittersweet and unsentimental in the kindest way. DiCamillo gives us a fanastic cast: a status-seeking countess who installs the elephant in her ballroom, a crippled stonecutter who laughs bitterly all day, a singing beggar and his blind dog, a kindly, orphanage-managing nun. She obviously loves all her characters, no matter how flawed, and makes each a brilliant tiny reflection on human nature.

    After all, every good fairy tale needs a moral: The Magician’s Elephant is about empathy, about going beyond what we see and listening to what people are really saying. When Peter finally comes face to face with the elephant, he stops and looks—really looks—at her. And realizes that she’s not just the instrument of his quest but a creature far from her home and lonely.

    And Peter forgot about Adele and his mother and the fortuneteller and the old soldier and his father and battlefields and lies and promises and predictions. He forgot about everything except for the terrible truth of what he saw, what he understood in the elephant’s eyes.

    She was heartbroken.

    She must go home.

    Compassion is an easy enough concept to beat anyone over the head with. But DiCamillo’s touch is feather-light and sure. Connections missed and made are scattered throughout the book, some just a sentence long. But they’re all in there, and I don’t think it will spoil anything to say that consideration and sympathy are, in the end, greatly rewarded. The book itself is a fine reward just to hold and read. Plus it’s never a bad thing to remember that everyone has a story of their own to tell—even, and maybe especially, an elephant.

    (The illustration is by Yoko Tanaka for The Magician’s Elephant.)

    • Share/Bookmark

    Showdown

    As of Tuesday night, Amazon’s standoff with Macmillan has showed no signs of resolving itself since they went head to head Friday. For those not following the ins and outs of the situation obsessively, which is probably most people, the setup is as follows:

    In the course of negotiations, Macmillan CEO John Sargent proposed a plan to set e-book prices from $5.99 to $14.99, independent of Amazon’s decreed $9.99. Amazon responded Friday afternoon by pulling all Macmillan direct sale books, both print and digital editions, from their site (though they’re still available via third-party sales). This included all Macmillan’s subsidiaries: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt, Picador, St. Martin’s Press, and Tor/Forge. Obviously, the action did not sit well in a number of corners. By Sunday Amazon had agreed to “capitulate” and restore sales of Macmillan books, although it never exactly said when.

    “Resolving itself” sounding a lot like all the situation needs is a couple of organic adjustments and everything will level out. In fact, this has probably changed a lot of aspects of publishing and bookselling for good, maybe in substantial ways. Trying to figure out how and how much, though, is like handicapping a race from the backstretch… too many variables still in play, and I don’t feel like I have more to contribute to the whole mess than to point you all at some good coverage.

    Galleycat’s Jason Boog has kept up a good ongoing overview, with a number of pertinent side notes; it’s worth checking daily.

    MobyLives has a good discussion of what setting a fair price for e-books might involve.

    Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow touches on the DRM death grip.

    Charlie’s Diary spells out the supply chain breakdown, and the comments section is worth taking the time to read, if just to get an idea of the sheer number of facets and opinions present.

    And on Whatever, John Scalzi doesn’t hold back. It’s a good cathartic rant—

    Just in case anyone needs the following disclosure: As an author who has books published by Macmillan (and whose books are at this writing still delisted by Amazon), I am not a wholly disinterested party. And yes, by this point, I expect I will be the very last Macmillan author Amazon gets around to relisting.

    But as I said, this is all a long way from being resolved, and I think anything can happen at this point. So keep checking in. Hey, it’s a little slower than Lost, but plenty compelling if you pay attention and it’ll probably rock your world a lot longer.

    • Share/Bookmark

    RIP, Kage Baker

    Very sad news: the marvelous science fiction writer Kage Baker died Sunday at the too-young age of 57. She was best known for The Company novels, a tour de force time travel series that begins with In the Garden of Iden and continues through another seven novels, concluding with The Sons of Heaven.

    You can read tributes to her from the SFWA, Marty Halpern, and George R. R. Martin. Martin’s conclusion:

    Flowers and donations and tributes are all well and good, but I’ve always felt that the best way to remember any writer is to read their work. Kage’s work deserves to be read and reread for many years to come. It’s sad to think there won’t be any more of it.

    In that spirit, I offer you The Empress of Mars, a 2003 novella nominated for both a Hugo and a nebula.

    • Share/Bookmark

    Open Letters Monthly, February 2010

    The February issue of Open Letters Monthly is up now, and it’s packed with good stuff.

    The idea behind the lead piece, Bad Books, Good Hooks, would have reeled me in even if I weren’t a contributor: “Be it a third martini, or a second Gulf War, we’re all familiar with ideas that look great in theory but are disasters in practice. In the literary world, those disasters grate especially intimately; there’s no feeling quite like reading a book and wishing it were better, wishing it had seen more of its own potential – or even just wishing its author could write a little better.” William T. Vollman, Richard Powers, Robert Stone, and Arthur Conan Doyle get the treatment, as do a host of other writers who could have just… been… a bit better. Stay tuned for further installments in the series here, and if a book comes to mind that you’re not sure whether to hug close to your heart or hurl across the room, please feel free to submit your own Bad Books, Good Hooks contribution.

    Ingrid Norton introduces what will be an ongoing feature, The Sweetness of Short Novels, which leads off with her review of J.L. Carr’s A Month in the Country.

    Not just bad books and short books in this issue, though; you’ll also find:

    Sam Sacks on Adam Haslett’s Union Atlantic and Jonathan Dee’s The Privileges
    Steve Donoghue on Robert E. Sullivan’s Macaulay: The Tragedy of Power and Steve Pincus’ 1688: The First Modern Revolution
    Greg Waldmann on Joris Luyendijk’s People Like Us: Misrepresenting the Middle East
    Alyssa Meyers on Joan Schenkar’s The Talented Miss Highsmith: The Secret Life and Serious Art of Patricia Highsmith
    Amelia Glaser on Vladimir Nabokov’s posthumous The Original of Laura
    Janet Potter on Joshua Ferris’ The Unnamed
    John G. Rodwan, Jr. on Terry Teachout’s Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong and Wil Haygood’s Sweet Thunder: The Life and Times of Sugar Ray Robinson
    Irma Heldman on Lou Berney’s Gutshot Straight and Elmore Leonard’s Road Dogs
    Tom Cardamone on Stuart Weisberg’s Barney Frank: The Story of America’s Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman
    John Madera on Mary Caponegro’s All Fall Down

    In the world of poetry, Ed McFadden reviews Andrew Zawacki’s collection Petals of Zero/Petals of One and Elisa Gabbert discusses Karl Parker’s Personationskin. In addition, Open Letters interviews poet, translator and novelist David R. Slavitt, and gives us a fresh translation, from the Latin, of John Milton’s On the Fifth of November.

    Phillip A. Lobo weighs in on that seminal PC game, The Oregon Trail. And artist Katie Caron talks about the sculptural piece that graces Open Letters’ front page, as well as this post:

    Dominium is a multi-media sculptural environment incorporating many elements of our world including: oil, iron, plastic, acrylic, clay, silicon, motors, florescent lights, moss, salt, and water. Much like the Cabinets of Curiosities from the 1700’s, Dominium is an encapsulated space containing the whole world within. Before the information age, people understood the world through tactile specimens in museum displays. This work is both referencing that era of curiosity compared with the immersive experience of looking through the virtual windows of our era, the tv, computer, and iphone.

    So go check out the new issue now, and don’t delay! February’s a short month.

    • Share/Bookmark

    The Lost Booker

    Another year, another gimmick. Last year the Man Booker Prize offered us the Best of the Booker, which pitted previous winners against each other. (Won by Salman Rushdie’s Midnight Children, which also won the Booker of Bookers in 1993. Seriously, is it that good? The more I hear about it, the more perversely reluctant I am to read it.) Now they’re presenting us with the Lost Booker Prize. It seems that in 1970, the eligibility rules changed so that instead of honoring a book from the previous year, the Booker judges awarded the prize to a book from the current year. This meant that a whole slew of books which would have been eligible fell through the cracks. Forty years later, the Bookers are rectifying the matter: they’ve released a shortlist of 22 books published in 1970, to be whittled down to a shortlist in March. The winner of the coveted Lost Booker prize will be announced in May.

    I have to admit I’m intrigued. I love literary prizes. (I know the arguments against them: they’re shallow, they’re trivial, they often reward bad books, and why should writers compete against each other anyway? I don’t care. They may be meaningless, but they’re tons of fun, and in the era of Twitter and texting anything that gets the public to notice long-form prose for a few seconds is okay by me.) And as far as literary PR stratagems go, this is a pretty good one. Many books make a big splash when they are released and then disappear from the public consciousness years or months (or even weeks) later. When’s the last time you saw someone reading The Corrections? Martin Dressler? Elbow Room? The Lost Booker gives us an excuse to travel back in time and visit the big books of a previous era–at least some of them. I was really surprised to discover that I’d only heard of a handful of these books, and I’d only read one: Patrick O’Brian’s Master and Commander. (Highly recommended. Expect to see it on the shortlist.) I’m frankly curious as to how the Booker Prize people came up with the list in the first place–surely they didn’t go back and reread dozens of books published in 1970? In fact, once they limited the list to books that were reasonably available, there may not have been many left (although admittedly some of them are easier to get your hands on than others).

    Interestingly, two of the books are series mysteries–Reginald Hill’s A Clubbable Woman and Ruth Rendell’s A Guilty Thing Surprised–although I don’t think that a series mystery has ever been on the longlist for the prize itself, to the eternal chagrin of P. D. James fans. No doubt this is a result of the availability issue–many of the beautifully written, unassailably literary works from 1970 may be long out-of-print, but detective fiction is forever. (On the other hand, the longlist often features one or two oddball entries–the dreadful Child 44 and the weirdly entertaining Me Cheeta spring to mind, so maybe it’s not so surprising.) Three others–Muriel Spark’s The Driver’s Seat, Susan Hill’s I’m the King of the Castle, and Patrick White’s The Vivisector–sound like thrillers, or at least very chilling examples of literary fiction. Some of the descriptions seem positively quaint; for example, Nina Bawden’s The Birds on the Trees apparently features a middle-class family devastated when their son is kicked out of school. It’s hard to imagine a book with such low stakes being published today; surely the son would have to blow up the school, or at least shoot the principal. Others just seem a touch old-fashioned, but still relevant. Margaret Laurence’s The Fire Dwellers and Elaine Feinstein’s The Circle seem to address the budding feminist movement, but their portrayals of wives and mothers trying to figure out how to have an identity while still addressing their family’s needs could well resonate now.

    One wonders how many of these books might have made the longlist had they been eligible, and how different the tastes of 1970 and 2010 are. So here’s my thought for the 2011 gimmick. Let’s rerun the 1971 Bookers and see which book comes out on top.

    Anyone wanting to read the Lost Booker longlist along with the judges? Knock yourself out:

    • Share/Bookmark

    Not Just Sex for Sex’s Sake

    Over at The Rumpus last week, Jami Attenberg and Kate Christensen had a gratifyingly indelicate conversation about sex and writing (with a very NSFW tab header, if there’s any danger of someone reading over your shoulder). It made me nod in agreement, it made me want a whiskey straight up and a cigarette, and it definitely made me want to check out Attenberg’s new novel, The Melting Season. But more than that, I found it refreshing to read a discussion of sex in fiction that gets right to the heart of the matter. She admits:

    Most of the sex in my books is not particularly good sex. It’s funny sex, or it’s sad sex, or it’s angry sex. But it’s not sex coming out of love or a necessarily healthy-passionate place. It’ll hopefully teach you something about the character though.

    And right there, that’s what bugged me about Katie Roiphe’s infamous springboard of an article on Sex and the Great Male Novelists in the New York Times a few weeks back. She had a lot to say about the written sex itself, which of course is fun and titillating to talk about, and the authors—the men—writing about all this sex and then not writing about it. But I think focusing on that by itself is just dogearing the pages that have dirty parts. It’s not really about writing.

    Unless you’re doing erotica, a sex scene isn’t sitting there in the story to entertain. Like any other element in good storytelling, it’s there to move the plot or develop character, bloodless as that sounds. Sex scenes are a way in; they’re information on how a person operates in the world and how the world operates on him, often literally. The context of that world has at least as much to do with the sex being rendered as the author does. A John Updike blowjob carries a whole different set of baggage from the head a guy gets in a Steve Almond story; Alexander Portnoy is jerking off within an entirely different cultural construct from the kid in Raymond Carver’s “Nobody Said Anything” or Jonathan Franzen’s hapless Chip in The Corrections. It’s like the inverse of a cigar sometimes being just a cigar—sometimes sex is subliminal code for everything else. That’s what went so wrong with all that green dildo action in Philip Roth’s last novel: It was just sex for sex’s sake.

    So it’s nice to move away from all the winky nudgy business and get back to the writing. A good sex scene is a pleasure, but it needs a job to do, and that’s not a function of a writer’s gender or generation but of intent and skill. I’m definitely looking forward to reading Jami Attenberg’s new book—and not just for the sex.

    (Image courtesy of XKCD. Thanks, Daniel.)

    • Share/Bookmark
    Subscribe