Friday, March 19, 2010

Southern Stereotypes - This is a long one, boobies!

SOUTHERN CULTURE - BOTH REAL AND STEREOTYPICAL
(As Shown Through Ellen Gilchrist’s “The Stucco House” and Robert Stone’s “The Hall of Mirrors”

As a native of the American South, I am oftentimes chagrined, saddened, and even embarrassed at how Southern culture is depicted in literature, movies and other media, even in works that are accorded the mantle of superiority or even greatness. It saddens me when an inaccurate portrait is painted by an author from another culture and when the creator is himself of the South my feeling is then one of betrayal and even anger. Occasionally, someone “gets it right” and even then, after an initial feeling of gratitude, two thoughts emerge; one that not enough people read or viewed it, and; two, that they didn’t believe the picture presented because of the preponderance of material presented in a negative or dishonest manner.

Stereotypes abound throughout ours and I suspect, most cultures, but it seems the culture peculiar to the South is fair game to anyone and everyone, to continue the myth, mostly negative, whereas these same authors would recoil in horror at the perpetuation of myth as pertains to say, race. (Although, it is evident that many of the Southern stereotypes are perpetuated in an attempt to counteract racial myth--a lie battling a lie, as it were)

To illustrate the contrast between an accurate portrayal of Southern culture and one that conforms to popular myth, I would like to take a look at two works, Ellen Gilchrist’s short story, “The Stucco House”, and Robert Stone’s novel “A Hall of Mirrors.”

Gilchrist, in my opinion, is far more the accurate of the two, in depicting the Southern culture experienced by those born and bred as Southerners (I’m not including Southerners who have been subjected (perhaps elsewhere) to a “liberal” education and seem embarrassed by their heritage, but am speaking of the “rank and file” Southerner, both poor and wealthy, black and white, male and female).

Gilchrist uses both physical description of setting and telling incidents to create a highly accurate picture of the culture as it has evolved over a historical period dating from the 1600’s.

One of the things one learns from living in various places in the South, is that you cannot place the entire South in one descriptive basket. There are oranges in that basket, as well as apples, bananas, pomegranates, plums, mangos, and even a breadfruit or two. True, there are some characteristics of the culture that remain constant no matter where one lives in that section of the country, but there are many mutations of the same basic culture, from state to state, sub-region to sub-region, city to country. For instance, in the state of Texas, which is actually a border area of the south, folks who live in the eastern section and central portion of the state consider themselves Southerners, while those who live in the Panhandle or northwest Texas may consider themselves Mid-Westerners or Westerners. To get even more specific, consider the almost-twin cities of Fort Worth and Dallas. Dallas folks consider themselves the elitist of all genteel Southerners, while Fort Worth natives would be horrified to be described as anything but true Westerners and cowboys. Citizens of Birmingham, Alabama are primarily Baptist in religious background, while those from New Orleans are primarily Catholic.

In “The Stucco House”, the physical geography, including landscape as it is described, is not merely an exercise in physical description; it means something in relation to the characters, providing clues that, in both subtle and more overt ways, contribute to the image the reader visualizes of the characters in his mind’s eye.

Many of the elements of physical description Gilchrist provides in this story are peculiar to New Orleans and the South and its attendant history and culture and will not be so readily evident to the reader not immersed in this particular society, while other such descriptive elements are more universal and will therefore be more apparent to the reader with a different experience. Some of the elements she uses in defining characters in her use of place are not evident upon an initial cursory reading, but are after completion of the reading and reflection. They serve, in the end, as a resonance to the characters, especially the principal one, Teddy, that lends a richness not available in mere physical description of his surroundings in a purely poetical or lyrical choice of words.

The reader from another culture for example, may not “get” all of the properties of Gilchrist’s physical and geographical description as will someone born and raised in the New Orleans culture, but they will come away with a sense, even if inarticulated, of what Teddy and his family are, in that milieu.

In the very first sentence of the story, for instance, Gilchrist signals that she is going to use physical description to place her characters in that culture. The sentence reads, “Teddy was asleep in his second-floor bedroom.” This would probably be nothing more than a “window pane description” in most other settings; in New Orleans this sentence signals two things.

One, the name she has chosen for her main character provides a clue as to his place within that culture. This is one of the examples referred to earlier that is not evident upon initial reading, but becomes clear upon finishing the story. “Teddy”, the diminutive of Theodore, is a name popular among upper middle-class white families, who chose their names carefully. A Northern writer, subject to the myths he learned to accept as Southern culture, might have named the character “Delbert” or “Billy Bob” or some other such foolish handle, more common in such border areas as southern Indiana than in the South, and, if a Southern person’s name, it would be found in someone of a lower economic and social strata. By using the name Teddy, Gilchrist immediately provides a clue as to who this young boy is in class terms. She makes the decision to use the diminutive instead of the more proper “Theodore”, which might have been done if this story had been written by another writer and set in, say, Connecticut, and is another slight clue to his identity and even age. J.D. Salinger could name a character Teddy and it would be unclear as to his age without further reading--although he would probably also be of the upper middle-class bracket, but could have been a young boy or a young, wealthy roué. Names, as Gilchrist seems absolutely aware, are of great importance in dispelling myth. The South tends to get lumped into one huge androgynous mass, ignoring a huge region of the country that is vastly complex and varied. There is, for example, a difference between a factory worker living in a trailer park in Harlan, Kentucky and the wife of a newspaper owner in Athens, Georgia.

Louisiana itself, is, in some ways, an aberration of what outsiders commonly think of as the South. In New Orleans, the religious background is primarily Roman Catholic (although there is a rich mix of other religions as well, including A.M.E., voodoo, Baptist, Pentecostal, Jewish and many, many others, even though it is certainly true that the defining religion is Catholic because of the Spanish and French historical influence), while in other parts of the state, particularly the northern and northwestern sections, most of the residents, black and white, favor the Southern Baptist flavor of worship. (And, too, you can find a church or two that favors rattlesnake handling and the drinking of poisonous substances as proof of their faith.) To inject a personal history, being a Southerner myself, born and raised along the Gulf coast of Texas and reared Baptist as were virtually all my acquaintances, when critics term Flannery O’Connor a “Southern writer”, I am always taken slightly aback in my mind, for wasn’t she Catholic? Indeed, and my own prejudice as to what constitutes a Southerner stems from the fact that I only ever met a real live Catholic one time while growing up, and that person was viewed with as much curiosity in my hometown of Freeport, Texas as would have been a Martian with three heads arriving in our midst. My family also lived for a period in Algiers, Louisiana, across the river from New Orleans, and that was my first sustained exposure to those who practiced the Catholic faith, and our reaction was to view them as totally alien beings, almost as heathens. That this is unfair and patently untrue is beside the point--the point is that the South cannot be defined by such simple terms as predominant religions or accents or even a common “take” on things.

However, New Orleans, where both Gilchrist and Stone set their stories, is a fairly isolated and definable community, unique in the South, and as so, is fairly easy to assign attributes to a fiction character that carry weight as to who that person is and where he fits into the mosaic of the culture--which piece of the tile provides his borders. Other Southern cities, such as Atlanta and Houston would be far less easy to study simply because of the mass infusion of Northerners into those communities which have homogenized the culture into something hybrid. Indeed, it is those very cities that inspired the epithet “The New South,” illustrating a new kind of culture not found in that form anywhere else. Perhaps the same sort of thing occurred in Detroit in the 1940’s after World War II, when a huge influx of Southerners, mostly black and poorer whites, immigrated to that city for employment in the auto factories, although I have yet to hear anyone apply the appellation “The New North” to that city, even though the experience was similar to the later exodus.

“Teddy” therefore, suggests immediately a young boy of some wealth and proper family, i.e., long and distinguished lineage.

In the last part of her opening sentence, we see that Teddy is asleep in his second-floor bedroom. This again, denotes he is a member of the ruling class. Poorer residences in New Orleans, unless they have been subdivided into apartments, are traditionally single story structures, usually of “shotgun” or “camel-back” architecture. That he also has his own bedroom is a luxury usually only those well-to-do can afford.

As the first paragraph of the story develops, even though the author has not yet used a single word to physically describe Teddy, we have a complete picture of who he is by the description of his physical surroundings, especially if we understand the Southern culture. His bedroom has a private bath. For a child to have his own bathroom is assuredly an indicator of wealth. Then, there are mobiles from the Museum of Modern Art hanging from a ceiling fan above his bed. In the window is another mobile a visiting poet had given him. He has been tutored. All these are obvious signs of a privileged upbringing, even to someone unfamiliar with New Orleans culture.

Gilchrist then uses two elements of place that may mean little to a reader unfamiliar with the New Orleans culture, but which carry a great significance to the initiated. The first is that Teddy’s mother came originally from Mandeville across Lake Ponchartrain. The city of Mandeville has a two-headed reputation, in that wealthy racehorse breeders abound there, as well as other families of wealth--lumber owners and other captains of industry, along with rich landowners, and...it is the home of the state mental institution. Mandeville thus serves as a metaphor for the personality of the mother, and indeed, we later find out that she is a woman of breeding but imbued with baser instincts. This is actually an accurate picture of what the Old South views of as the New Southern Woman, at least in the more rarefied classes, and, interestingly, this view derives from the influence the movie “Gone With The Wind” created both in Southerners and Yankees alike. The character of Scarlett O’Hara is perhaps the culprit in many of the more untrue stereotypes of Southerners, especially of women. Rarely, if ever, did such a woman exist, except in Margaret Mitchell’s imagination, and in fairness, the movie version wasn’t quite true to the character portrait Mitchell painted, but...That’s Hollyweird!

Finally (in the first paragraph) we learn that Teddy is a student at the Newman School. The public schools in New Orleans are virtually 100 percent black; nearly all white citizens, regardless of economic status, send their children to private schools. In the parish of New Orleans itself, one would be hard-pressed to find a Caucasian child in most public schoolrooms. Whites comprise less than five percent of the public school population in that parish, more in the outlying parishes of Metairie and Kenner, but still not significant. But, there are private schools and then there are private schools. A great many exist solely to allow de facto segregation and even the poorest of families go to great lengths to provide private schooling for their children for that sole reason. However, there are certain schools, chief of which are Newman and Ecole, which are highly selective (read, no blacks allowed whatsoever, regardless of the economic strata) and which require exorbitant sums to attend. Newman stands alone at the very top of this elite list, with Ecole second. The requirements at Newman are race, wealth and family; at Ecole, only race and wealth are the determinants--they will enroll the noveau riche while Newman will not. If a New Orleanian hears that a family’s son is admitted to Newman the correct assumption would be that child to be wealthy, white and old money. These two schools, in particular, make no attempt at all to even allow a token child of color to be admitted to their hallowed corridors, indeed, just the opposite. Every effort is taken to prevent that from happening.

Further evidence of Teddy’s class is given when we learn he attends services at Episcopal, a denomination not known for its large poverty-stricken congregations.

In the second paragraph, we receive yet another clue to Teddy’s class. His stepfather Eric had let “the springer spaniels” into the house. If the characters peopling this story were of a different class, the dogs might perhaps have been nondescript mutts or hounds, but springer spaniels are an aristocratic breed of canine and their being in the house wouldn’t be worthy of note, especially since they don’t contribute to the story except to help define this family’s socio-economic status.

The title itself lends import to who these people are. Stucco is not a material used in poorer construction. Baser structures are made of cheaper pine from the northeastern part of the state. Stucco is another indicator of wealth.

Gilchrist really pounds us over the head with details that stake out
Teddy’s elevated place in society. His older brothers are off for the summer at Camp Carolina, for instances. Lower classes don’t send their sons and daughters to ritzy summer camps, as a rule.

A large part of the New Orleans culture is the free use of alcohol, perhaps more so here than in any other part of the country as a whole. The author introduces this element into the mosaic when she describes the July heat as being so oppressive that,

“It pressed people’s brains against their skulls. Only
sugar and whiskey made people feel better.”

Gilchrist is right; sugar is everywhere, as is booze, and it is what allows people to get up and operate in the heat. More important, this passage subtly refers to the peculiar kind of New Orleans madness others have noted and written about, such as in Tennessee Williams’ plays “The Glass Menagerie” and “A Streetcar Named Desire”.

Now the trouble begins in the story. Eric wakes Teddy to go search for Teddy’s mother who has been gone all night. Eric drives down Nashville Street to Chestnut (shabby part of town) and then they come to a duplex where Eric knows her to be. This is a two-story building, but a duplex, signifying that it is a poorer residence, having been divided into two dwellings. Also, the names of the streets in this section are important, as streets in the Big Easy are how poorer neighborhoods are defined boundary-wise, avenues being where the wealthier reside.

The naming of the streets is also important, as New Orleans is a checkerboard” town. Roughly every two blocks, the neighborhood changes. There will be two blocks of mostly poor blacks and whites, then two blocks of wealthier whites, sometimes, as on St. Charles Avenue and parts of the Uptown area, literal millionaires in a two block stretch and then two blocks of slum-like housing directly adjacent. The reason for this is that integration was forced on New Orleans in the 1960’s, and whereas northern cities had decades upon decades, even centuries, to “naturally” form their racially-defined neighborhoods, many southern cities like New Orleans didn’t have that luxury of time and with the passage of new housing laws, the town almost overnight developed in a checkerboard fashion, racially. There are several other dynamics at work here as well; for instance, New Orleans has a curious history of coexisting with black people, with their tradition of wealthy young white men once yearly selecting black mistresses whom they then set up in homes and treated as an unequal family, going so far as to educate their mutual offspring in colleges and universities and setting those children up in businesses. That meant a unique acceptance among the white population, especially the wealthy, of black people that was peculiar to the local culture. Even back to the slave-holding days, blacks were given quarters adjacent to the main house, where, many times, mistresses for the man of the manor were openly housed. These are still known as “slave quarters” and when integration came, many were sold off or rented as residences to blacks. That is a way for the locals even today to tell if the person they are talking to is a native or carpetbagger. When speaking of the old area in the Vieux Carre, natives refer to it as the “French Quarters, while an interloper will almost always call the area the “French Quarter”. Along St. Charles Avenue, for instance, there are mile after mile of incredible mansions, while a block behind them, on either side, exists some of the most execrable squalor imaginable. Unspoken laws exist today that prevent each race from trespassing on the other, even with their close proximity to one another. One ancient exception was the establishment of the “neutral ground”, the center medians in the middle of designated streets where blacks were allowed to set up stands for purposes of commerce in the midst of white neighborhoods and where blacks and whites could safely commingle.

A little later on in the story, we learn the housekeeper Geneva (black name) will be along shortly and Eric tells Teddy to have her fix him some pancakes, which fixes their racial relationship, as even the children of white families have almost complete authority over black servants and employees. Gilchrist doesn’t have Eric “ask” Teddy for breakfast; he has the boy “tell” her.

Further on, Eric sends Teddy to his grandparents’ house in Mandeville with Big George the gardener. Once again, place and setting help delineate the Southern relationships of the races. Big George takes Teddy to the Camellia Grill, a famous landmark just off St. Charles Avenue where the streetcar makes its turn onto Carollton Avenue. (I used to live a block away on Burthe) This is Tulane University area, where the nouveau riche attend (the truly rich go to LSU if they are patriotic, or out of state to Duke or Maryland or various Ivy League schools); Tulane has the reputation of being where captains of industry send their sons and daughters after they’ve partied their way out of several other schools, and while it is respectable, it has a slightly soiled patina for those of truly old money. Thus, it is “safe” to venture out in this neighborhood, even if it is a cut below better neighborhoods found uptown.

Racially, the Camellia Grill qualifies as a place where young white boys of breeding may go with a trusted black employee. The clientele is a mix of tourists and locals, where locals are ordinarily seated on the left of the two counters and tourists and lower-level citizens on the right. In busy times it becomes more democratic, but occasionally an older dowager with a heightened sense of propriety will become incensed at finding herself being seated in the bustle at the wrong counter and adjustments will be made by the one-armed owner who seats himself by the cash register. Tourists are somewhat bewildered at times when they observe people turning down a spot at the right counter to await an opening on the left. The Camellia Grill represents a neutral zone, just as the neutral ground along some of the streets does.

Before they go to the Camellia Grill, Teddy asks Eric if he can buy Big George lunch. He doesn’t ask George, but Eric, as this is the proper way to do this in this society. If Teddy and George were of equal class and/or race, George would, as the adult, purchase the lunch, but in this instance, that would be unthinkable. Again, Gilchrist doesn’t select the place they will eat in willy-nilly, but to again further define the characters against the backdrop of Southern custom.

When Big George drives Teddy over the Ponchartrain bridge, he keeps the speedometer pegged at a steady sixty miles per hour. Seemingly innocent, the speed the author allows the black handyman to drive, but as in most other things peculiarly New Orleanian, this is another clue to his status. Ponchartrain bridge has its own police force, separate from New Orleans and Metairie on the one end and Covington on the other, a “Sheriff of Nottingham” fiefdom. While the legal speed is fifty-five except near the middle where the bridge rises to allow boats to pass on their way to the Gulf, white drivers routinely motor at speeds up to eighty with impunity while blacks are given a cushion of only about five miles per hour. The chief of this police force was a client in the salon I worked in and would often joke about this disparity and regular commuters across the bridge were fully aware of their limits. The only exception to this unwritten law were white drivers of cars that appeared suspicious, perhaps fitting the profile of a drug dealer or user or vehicles weaving erratically. Otherwise, race dictated how fast you could drive beyond the posted limit. This seems picayune (unless, of course, it affects you), but such things are important to many white people.

It is certainly possible that the speed Gilchrist had Big George driving was entirely innocent, but considering the care with which she has inserted other elements into the story that carry racial and social weight, it is also entirely possible this is still another meaningful bit of information designed to place the characters within the context of their culture.

Outsiders to the culture may laugh at such mores or think them nonexistent if they were not raised in the society and forced since birth to suffer or enjoy the consequences, but they exist and are part and parcel of every citizen’s life, unlikely to be ignored. Thirty-odd years of civil rights legislation has done much to change the outward appurtenances of the Old South, but underneath still rumble many of the old feelings and values, and survival, especially of blacks, depends heavily on knowledge of how the “system” works.

A telling incident that happened to me and my wife Mary (who is from Indiana), occurred when she was newly arrived in New Orleans, shortly after we were married. One day, while passing an attractive girl, I made the offhand remark that she was “passing for white.” In the North, such a thought wouldn’t have even crossed my mind--I doubt I would have paid the girl the slightest attention insofar as race was concerned. But, back in the South, it became again almost a knee-jerk reflex to pick up on such a thing.

“What do you mean?” Mary asked, not understanding what I was saying. I explained and she retorted, “You’re crazy! Why, that girl is whiter than I am!” She refused to believe me, not that it mattered in the least whether the girl was white or black or green. That wasn’t the point. The point was, in that society, someone with even a solitary drop of so-called “black blood” who would try to deny that blood was still considered in a negative way. A day later, this same girl happened to enter the salon my wife worked at, and a black stylist with whom she worked, whispered behind her hand to Mary that “That hussy is trying to pass.” Only then did my wife believe what I had said and still she herself couldn’t see any difference in the features of the girl from any other white girl. It’s just that both I, the white, and her co-worker, the black, had both been raised in a culture where even the tiniest clues are considered important to determine race and social class and these principles are still being adhered to even at this rather late date in our history.

There was an ongoing cause celibre featured in the media about the same time, where a woman had put on an application for a state government job that she was of the white race. Someone had investigated and discovered that she was one sixteenth black. The state had denied employment, claiming she had falsified her application and the case went to the state supreme court, which held for the state, saying the woman was legally black. It didn’t matter that she was overwhelmingly of Caucasian heritage and race, in the tradition of the culture even the slightest trace of black ancestry renders one black. The finding held on appeal.

The same kind of attitude pertains to social class, which in the South is more dependent on family and breeding than wealth. As a point of fact, wealth is more or less at the bottom of the deciding factors when determining whether to interact socially with others. A good example is the term “jeezum” which was popular among many teenaged girls in New Orleans a few years ago. If a visitor were to eavesdrop on dozens of teens while walking around the city, he would think the term to be a local saying most of the kids were using, something like “cool, man” or the like. In fact, however, it was only uttered by those raised in the Ninth Ward and Irish Channel, never by an Uptown girl. Use of this term would place the person class-wise instantly by a local observer. There are literally thousands of such clues that are absorbed almost subconsciously by the native and serve to place others according to their class, race, or station in society. Gilchrist seems especially attuned to many of these nuances, and while someone not privy by virtue of a lifelong training in picking them up would scarcely notice them or even be aware of them, a story like “The Stucco House” is teeming with them.

Robert Stone, in his award-winning novel “A Hall of Mirrors” seems to have gone in another direction. The feeling this reader came away with after reading the story, also set in New Orleans, was that of a person (the author) who approaches his material from two perspectives. One, as a Southerner, but not one from New Orleans, and two, as a writer who experiences guilt over his heritage, in particular in respect to race relations.

In “A Hall of Mirrors”, Stone showed me a side of New Orleans I’m fairly unfamiliar with--East New Orleans. When you live in New Orleans you are aware of two distinct and separate parts of the metropolis, New Orleans itself and the outlying communities or suburbs, including Metairie, Kenner, Vieux Carre, the CBD, Uptown, Downtown, Irish Channel, Ninth Ward, Bucktown, Lakefront and several other smaller areas. East New Orleans is an area unto itself, viewed as such by residents of both general areas. While it was fascinating to see a part of a world which on the one hand I’m very familiar and on the other completely ignorant, I sensed a false note in the novel, in that Stone has residents from East New Orleans routinely interacting with folks from the French Quarters and other parts of what is generally considered “true” New Orleans, while my own experience is that people from East New Orleans very rarely even visit New Orleans itself--perhaps for special occasions such as Mardi Gras or the Jazz and Heritage Festival, but certainly not on a day-to-day basis. That there are individuals that do so is undoubtedly true, but Stone presents intermingling of residents of the two areas as normal, which it is not.

Folks from Kenner or Metairie (Metry) and other adjacent communities travel back and forth to New Orleans, especially to the CBD and Quarters and obvious standard tourist areas, as regular as constipation in octogenarians, but folks from East New Orleans? My impression is that Stone is probably a native Southerner but not a New Orleans native, and that he gathered background material for this novel from visits, not from growing up in either area. Perhaps he is even from Louisiana, but not from East New Orleans or New Orleans (and the aforementioned outlying areas).

I suspect what Stone has done is what lots of others have done before him, in researching novels or films, and that is he interviewed doormen and cab drivers and bartenders to come up with his setting, and these are absolutely the last people in town a researcher should ever ask questions of.

For instance, in probably most major cities, it would be valuable to query doormen and cab drivers as to the best places to eat or where the best entertainment can be found...but not in New Orleans. In New Orleans, cabbies and doormen and others who meet and greet the public are all part of a vast “steering” system, whereby whenever they direct a tourist or outsider to a certain establishment, they are comped a couple of bucks. It’s an interesting phenomenon I’ve only observed in New Orleans and am unaware of its being practiced to that extent anywhere else in the country.

A good example of how this “underworld commerce” work is seen in the popular movie, “The Big Easy.” That film was so full of holes it should have been premiered in Wisconsin, the land of cheese, Swiss and other porous varieties. For instance, no principal actor had a correct New Orleans accent, and only Dennis Quaid’s mother had even a Louisiana accent. The only problem was, she used a Cajun accent, and Cajuns aren’t indigenous to New Orleans, but more from western and southern Louisiana, in the bayou country which the Cajuns settled upon immigrating from Nova Scotia. Granted, there are Cajuns in New Orleans, but there are Cajuns in Los Angeles as well, which doesn’t make their patois the native one there any more than it does in the Big Easy. There are seven identifiable accents attributed to New Orleans natives and none of them even resemble a Cajun one, but to an outsider who doesn’t recognize the differences in the various parts of the state, it might appear to be part of the native tongue. Cajuns who do immigrate to New Orleans strive valiantly to lose their accent usually, because the perception of those from the city that those who speak in Cajun dialects are “countrified” or rural bumpkins. The classic New Orleanian accent, found in the inner city more closely resembles a Brooklyn accent than any other, and is spoken by those who grew up in the Quarters and to a line bounded by Canal and Magazine. There’s also an Uptown accent (actually two accents, depending on what part of Uptown one is from), a Downtown accent, an Irish Channel accent, a Ninth Ward (very distinctive!) accent, a Bucktown accent...and so on. No Cajun accents. There’s also a point in the movie where Quaid is in the bullpen with a bunch of other cops and the female interest, Ellen Barkin, and he gets ready to leave and he says, “I’ll see you guys.” (Italics mine). Not on your life! Not in New Orleans or anywhere else in the South would a native say “you guys”. Especially when a woman was present. They would have fallen on the floor howling and hooting. He would properly have said “y’all” (and not that moronic “you-all” only seen in the worst of movies and books).

In another scene, Quaid and Barkin go to Tipitina’s and he breaks through the waiting line to eat their food. Not something a native New Orleanian would consider. The only worse food in town is found at The Court of Two Sisters and a native wouldn’t risk being shot (very real possibility) jumping a line anywhere, much less gag down the swill served at Tipitina’s under any circumstances. The only people who go to either place are those steered there by doormen and cab drivers who then are comped a couple of bucks for their “tip” to the unsuspecting tourist.

The reason I mention this movie is that I suspect Stone gathered much of his material in the same way the associate producer who scouted locations for “The Big Easy” probably did, by hanging out in bars and restaurants and schmoozing with doormen for “inside” information. Not realizing no self-respecting doorman or cabbie would ever give away information about the truly good places to go--most natives of New Orleans want to make sure tourists don’t find out the good places and ruin them as they have the Quarters.

Another clue (to this reader) that Stone isn’t a native of New Orleans is that he refers to the Vieux Carre as “the Quarter” and this is always a red flag to the native who always refers to the old section in the plural. Only Armani-clad national news broadcasters and folks from Ames, Iowa call it the “Quarter”, and it causes many a native to grind his teeth upon hearing the area referred to in that manner.

The second point observed in Stone’s novel, was in how he drew his villains. His technique smelled of John Grisham’s own inimitable style of painting his bad guys (other than the out-and-out thugs) as fat-cat Republican lawyers. Francois Camoin, in a lecture at Vermont College once stated jokingly that he was “Church-burned”, and I suspect that Stone, like Grisham and a lot of other “New Southerners” is “conservative-burned” and this colors their take on the culture. Stone’s racism is more than a little stereotyped, and if he were a Northerner perhaps this could be excused, but as I expect him to be a Southerner himself, I find inexcusable. I personally think that to create truly memorable villains, they must be endowed with the same heroic qualities as the hero, and Stone fails to do that. His villains have power, but that is not the same as heroism, and for me that is the failing of the book. All his racist folks are made to appear totally stupid, ignorant or blind, and while in no way would I ever condone racism, in a literary sense characters that are all cut from the same bolt of cloth come across as wooden caricatures that are, in the end, unbelievable, or, at the very least (and especially condemning) uninteresting. The fact of the matter is, there do exist racists that are intelligent; it gets an easy laugh to utter that’s not an example of an oxymoron, especially when preaching to the choir, but it doesn’t advance truth much either. Fighting a lie with a lie results in nothing but yet another lie, and that is the danger in this kind of writing.

When civil rights legislation was imposed on the South in the sixties, a new generation was exposed to a litany that derided the old culture and caused young minds to feel tremendous guilt at what their forefathers had supposedly created; it is into this atmosphere I feel Stone’s values emerged and the result is the kind of characters he created in the novel.

That this appeals to the non-Southern critic is understandable; it endorses what they already believe to be true and the fact that it emanates from a “Southerner” makes it just that much more “factual”, and the judges of such awards as the Faulkner Award, most likely being Southerners themselves, are, I suspect, cast from the same mold as Stone himself, and his work assuages their own feelings of guilt. Prestigious awards and laudatory plaudits aside, the promotion of yet more stereotypes does more harm than good in arriving at any truth, even though this is assuredly an extremely unpopular position to take in these days of the holy P.C.

If William Faulkner were to select the winner of the award that bears his name, I truly believe he would have chosen the work of someone like Gilchrist rather than Stone, with whom I feel he would have found exception to, not in his writing ability, which is considerable, but in his portrayal of the truth. Faulkner himself wavered little from exposing truth, even when it was painful, whereas Stone confronts the enemy obliquely, if not unfairly, much as a bully would.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

DETAIL AND DESCRIPTION

©Leslie H. Edgerton


As writers, let’s take a look at Detail and Description, kind of the glue that holds stories together and has a lot to do with making it come alive for the reader. These are a couple of the elements in which we can really get creative, and for me, is one of the fun parts of writing.

Detail and description are many times not taught in classes as a separate subject, other than the teacher comments on “good” description and detail when she sees it. This, I think, is an oversight. Improper use of these elements can make an otherwise good story come across as boring, the worst sin a writer can make. Above all else, a story should be entertaining. Otherwise, why read it? Unless the reader’s goal is instruction and for that we can always turn to nonfiction.

The first rule in creating word pictures that come alive for the reader is to avoid clichés and hackneyed phrases. These are the STD’s of creative writing and will lead to a bad end (dull story). Such (non)descriptive phrases like “black as the night”, “Pure as the driven snow”, “blazing eyes”, and the like are invisible to the reader. They’ve been used so much, they are no longer seen by the reader’s eye. Look for fresh, imaginative ways to describe; look for the small but telling detail. Chekhov admonished writers to make description “very brief and relevant...one ought to seize upon the little particulars, grouping them in such a way that, in reading, when you shut your eyes, you get a picture.” Chekhov felt it a sin to overdescribe (I agree!), that the good writer gives just enough detail to evoke the reader’s knowledge of life. This is why fresh description is so important. There should be little of it but what there is should be newly-created. Chekhov also had another interesting opinion. That the writer should write a beginning, a middle, and an end...and then cut the beginning and end because what’s left is the story. Very often, this is a good way to look at your stories. Helps get rid of those insidious backstories and setups beginning writers seem to favor...

Speaking of spareness in description, an interesting fact is that Hemingway’s entire vocabulary in the whole of his published writing involved only 8,000 words. And yet, what superior writing! Look at this brief description from The Sun Also Rises for an example of description that works well:

“The coffin was loaded into the baggage car of the train, and the widow and the two children rode, sitting, all three together, in an open third-class railway-carriage. The train started with a jerk, and then ran smoothly, going down grade around the edge of the plateau and out into the fields of grain that blew in the wind on the plain on the way to Tafalla.”

Don’t we get a complete physical picture of where these people are? There is no flowery, purple prose involved; the words used to depict the scene are spare, plain...and they work!

When description doesn’t work, or falls flat, it is usually because of the overuse of weak adverbs and adjectives. Voltaire observed that the adjective is the enemy of the noun and the adverb is the enemy of the verb. John Gardner said, “Adverbs are either the dullest tools or the sharpest tools in the novelist’s toolbox.”

Adjectives may seem to strengthen nouns when in fact they usually weaken them. Adverbs are not designed to augment a verb--as in walked slowly--but to create friction with the verb or change its meaning. For an exercise (not an assignment - just something to illustrate for yourself how this works), pair the following adverbs with different verbs to see how they change those verbs: conscientiously, uncharacteristically, reluctantly, furtively, and relentlessly.

All of this is not meant to say to not use adverbs and adjectives. Used thoughtfully, these sentence components can sharpen and illuminate prose, as in the following examples:

She had been to Germany, Italy, everywhere that one visits acquisitvely.
Elizabeth Bowen, The Last September

She jammed the pedal to the floor, and like something huge and pre-historic and pea-brained, the Jeep leapt stupidly out of its stall.
Sharon Sheehe Stark, A Wrestling Season

So closely had we become tied to the river that we could sense where it lay and make for it instinctively like cattle.
W.D. Wetherell, Chekhov’s Sister

When Sula first visited the Wright house, Helene’s curdled scorn turned to butter.
Toni Morrison, Sula

With a bladdery whack it (the boat) slapped apart and sprang away.
Sharon Sheehe Stark, A Wrestling Season

Hank was not accepted at Harvard Law School; but goodhearted Yale took him.
John Updike, “The Other”

On the far side of the room, under the moiling dogs the twins are
playing.
Francois Camoin, “Baby, Baby, Baby”

In contemporary fiction, description has become active and this is one of the features that separate it from more archaic writing. This is one of my personal criticisms of some high school English teachers, that they teach archaic styles of writing description. (My apologies to H.S. English teachers, of which there are many good ones...somewhere...) There is a logical reason for this. Many times, they are teaching the so-called “classics” and holding them up to be models. While it is instructive to read the “masters”, they should be read in context; that is, within their time period. Oftentimes, they are not, alas, but are held up as examples of how to write well. Let me give you an example.

Let’s say there was a woman living in Ames, Iowa a hundred years ago. She took a summer vacation in Australia and when she returned she wrote a novel based on her experiences there. In describing a kangaroo, she used six paragraphs to describe the animal, utilizing many clever similes and adjectives to do so. It was a wonderful work of art (for the time) but today’s writer would simply say the word “kangaroo” to describe the animal. I mean, we’ve all seen a kangaroo at this stage of our history, if not live in a zoo, at least on television or in a movie. There is no need to go into this much description in today’s world of information. But the teacher who used this model improperly would point out the author’s use of descriptive static language and the student who best emulated it would receive the better grade. Thus rewarded, he or she would go on to fill her pages with purple, flowery descriptive prose which is no longer in vogue. And probably end up teaching English herself and...

She (this imaginary student) would then write, say, a beach scene, using all kinds of flowery description to draw for the reader a mental picture of the waves and sand, when today’s writer would take that same description and make it shorter and more succinct and combine action with it. As in, “As he raced off the access road onto Bryan Beach, moonlight glinted off a piece of broken glass.” (Italics mine) This creates the entire visual scene of a beach in just a few short words.

That is the fault of Melville’s Moby Dick. For the first third of the novel, we are “treated” to reading everything we never wanted to know about a whale. That was fine for Melville’s time; readers didn’t have access to the Discovery Channel and didn’t know much about whales. Today, we all have a fairly good idea of what whales look like and even much about their lives and habits and the first thing an editor today would cut would be the first third of Mobey Dick.

Details are what makes a story become real for the reader. Details are what (effective) liars use to make their story believable. That reminds me. In my home, on a sign above my desk, I’ve posted an old Welsh saying that says, “Tell a story, tell a lie, or get out.” That’s all we are as storytellers--liars! Of course, in a non-pejorative way! Probably... Well, sometimes...

We use details to bring abstract ideas to life. It is not enough to talk of bigotry or wealth or a person’s “goodness”, we must bring these concepts to life in a concrete way with the use of descriptive sensory details, similes, and metaphors. For example, we have probably all been treated to a parent’s admonishment to “...eat all your vegetables--there are millions starving in Biafra who would love to have what you’re wasting.” This carries none of the weight it would if the parent say: “Eat all your vegetables. Mrs. Miller next door has been out of work for six months and last night I saw her going through our garbage can. She'd love to have what you're wasting." The parenting unit in this instance has rendered the abstract to the particular and it drives the lesson home. The same is true in writing. Don’t say your character is a liar; gives us a scene in which he lies. Don’t write that your character is poor; show us a scene in which he checks parking meters for change. Don’t state that your character is elderly; show her having trouble climbing a stairs. Use the kinds of details that show us that. The stairs were pitched steeply; they seemed endless, reaching to the sky; they were slippery with floor polish; the handrail was broken, etc. Reduce the vague to a small particular and then it comes alive and rings true.

Go back through your stories and try and find places where better use of detail and description will make the writing stronger and more believable.

Exercise Sensory Power.

The written word shouldn't just be read. It should be felt, tasted, smelled, heard, and seen. It should be experienced.

A lot of the time, as writers, we have movies playing in our heads. Characters talk and move; scenery whizzes by; secrets are whispered; bad guys die; heroes triumph. We see the stories in our minds and we write the words on the page.

One problem that can occur, though, is that we write what we "see," and we forget that there is a lot in our story to tell with the other senses, like smells, tastes, the feel of things, and sounds.

I bet if you went back through your manuscript or story and marked all the sensory words, you'd find that the vast majority of them are descriptions of the way things or people look. Not too many would be about the way something tasted, or the texture of an object, or the smell, whether it's rancid or flowery, or the everyday sounds.

You don't want your readers to just drift through your book, seeing the movie in your head. A film, even a scratch-and-sniff 3-D concoction, is inferior to a book in the ability of the author and reader to explore the senses. With a book, you have the opportunity to pull the reader in, not only with the sense of sight, but with all the other senses. Make use of that opportunity and your plot will be richer.

Instead of telling the reader that Mary is angry, show us her anger. Let us hear the door slam and the glass shatter. Let us feel the bits of glass etching her palm as she reaches for the door handle. Let us hear the glass crunching under her shoes as she paces, smell and taste the bitter coffee she sips.

When you are describing that Florida coastline, palm trees swaying, consider letting your readers feel the grit of the sand, taste the brine, smell the car exhaust, hear the pounding surf.

I'm not saying that every time you describe something, you have to include all five senses. But, certainly, try to throw in more than just what can be seen. Yes, this harkens back to the old saying of Show, Don't Tell, but it's more than that. I'm saying, yes, Don't Tell, but also Don't Just Show. At least not in the sense of letting the reader "see" everything. There's more to life than what we can see.

You can write about a small girl in an orchard, picking a fresh peach. You can describe the trees, what the girl is wearing, the color of the fruit. Now, close your eyes and go beyond sight. How does the peach feel in her hands? How does it smell? Is the sun hot? The tree shade cool? How does the peach taste? Does it drip down her chin? Is it sticky? How does the wind sound as it ripples through the leaves? Is it loud? Whispering? Does it tickle her skin?

One way to check whether you have Exercised Sensory Power is to take a hard copy of your story or novel and mark it up. Highlight sensory words. Use a different color marker for each of the five senses. My guess is that your work will be primarily the color you chose for sight.

Count your descriptions of each of the five senses. If you're especially weak in one of the senses, go back and find areas or scenes where you could edit. You don't have to go overboard. A little added here and there will greatly enhance your writing, and the reader's experience of your words.

Transport your readers into another world, then make that world real to them by triggering all of their senses. If you use all five senses, chances are you'll also hook your readers emotionally. And once you do that, they'll want more.

Blue skies,
Les

Monday, March 15, 2010

My Father and Robert Frost

My Father and Robert Frost/Les Edgerton


One day
I found a volume of poetry by Robert Frost
in the prison library at Pendleton
and checked it out.

Back in my cell, I read:
Home is the place where, when you want to go there, they have to take you in.

When I made parole, I called my mom to tell her my good news.
I found out that my dad had never read Robert Frost.

At least not that poem.

MORE ON "JUSTIFIED"

This was sent to me by fellow writer, Carl Brush, who spotted it after reading my post on the upcoming TV series "Justified" based on the Elmore Leonard character.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/03/15/DD3I1CF9S1.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 15, 2010 (SF Chronicle)
'Justified' scores with hot star, smart scripts
Tim Goodman


Justified: Drama. 10 p.m. Tuesdays on FX.

Timothy Olyphant's acting in "Justified" is so great that it strips away the notion that maybe he's so damn likable because of his all-too-short stint on HBO's classic Western series "Deadwood." As Seth Bullock, the sheriff in Deadwood, Olyphant's steely gaze, Zen interior and matinee looks called to mind a younger Clint Eastwood. That "Deadwood" was one of television's best series at the time - then ended abruptly at the end of three seasons - made a lot of people hungry to see him in something like that again.

In the second season of FX's "Damages," he was also a gun-toting killer, but more of the unstable variety. But now he's back as the lead in the cable channel's latest drama, "Justified," as Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens, born in eastern Kentucky and working in Miami wearing a Stetson
and cowboy boots.

Givens is based on the character created by Elmore Leonard, who serves as executive producer on "Justified." All you need is one look at Olyphant dressed for the role to know creator Graham Yost ("The Pacific," "Boomtown," "Band of Brothers") got the ideal actor. And it didn't take FX long to start an ad campaign that makes Olyphant look downright iconic. The best news of all is that Olyphant backs it up with an incredibly riveting performance. Better yet, "Justified" as a whole really delivers, from the explosive pilot to a couple of other, less adrenaline-filled but no less superb episodes that add humor and nuanced storytelling to the mix.

Getting the genius of Leonard just right has been a difficult thing for the big and small screen. (Italics mine--he's saying the same thing I did.) But in "Justified," the elements are in place for an exceptional television series. Raylan Givens left Kentucky to be a marshal at age 19. He's deadly accurate with a gun but, later in his career, became a bit too enamored with the old-school marshal mantra of "You've got 24 hours to leave town or the next time I see you, I shoot you on sight." He puts that into effect in Miami and, as a disciplinary measure, gets sent to - you guessed it - Kentucky.

Back home, he's got all kinds of ghosts to deal with. But his boss, Chief Deputy Art Mullen (Nick Searcy), is an old friend from the marshals. In Lexington, he teams up with Deputy Marshal Tim Gutterson (Jacob Pitts), a sniper in the Rangers while stationed in Afghanistan, and Rachel Brooks(Erica Tazel), who is small, fierce and no-nonsense.

As the episodes unroll, we start to learn slightly more about the latter two. No doubt Yost will let "Justified" breathe a little bit - and the Givens character really fills up a scene - and flesh out those characters even more. Almost immediately, Searcy gives gravitas to Mullen, who is happy but leery that Givens has fallen in his lap.

Those who have seen a trailer for this series have had their pulse jump at the thought of Olyphant squaring off with "Shield" alum Walton Goggins, who plays Givens' childhood friend from Kentucky, Boyd Crowder. The U.S. attorney wants Crowder for bank robbery charges (among the many other things he's done), and it's clear he and Givens are on an inescapable path that should meet like two trains on the same track.

But for all the firepower in the pilot - Crowder has a rocket launcher that he's not afraid to use - "Justified" settles down to tell other, slightly less incendiary stories that weave in the familiar Leonard-style humor. Although it may be hard to top what amounts to an instant-classic line Givens delivers to Crowder - "You make me pull, I'll put you down" - "Justified" does just fine with humor. "Outlaw life's hard, ain't it?" Givens says, after smashing the butt of a rifle into a neo-Nazi.

In the fourth episode, guest star Alan Ruck is wonderful as a fugitive wanted by the marshals and also by a drug cartel, who gets into a jam at the Mexican border. "Looks like we've got a sniper on the Mexican side," Givens yells out as Ruck's character is pinned down. The response: "Well, that's not going to help tourism."

But the overriding thought watching "Justified" is that FX has just created an intriguing American hero. Olyphant's iconic look and portrayal of Raylan Givens recalls every badass good guy in Western lore, and you find yourself liking him more every time he pulls the trigger. That alone would be enough to make "Justified" appointment television, but it's clear there's a lot more depth yet to be mined as Yost and his writers (who had bracelets made that say WWED - "What would Elmore do?") reinvent the modern-day lawman.

E-mail Tim Goodman at tgoodman@sfchronicle.com. You can read his TV blog,
the Bastard Machine, at www.thebastardmachine.com. Follow him at
www.twitter.com/bastardmachine. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2010 SF Chronicle

Thanks, Carl, for sending me this! It's funny--the instant I saw the very first frame of the promo, I knew this was an Elmore Leonard story. This is the first time I've seen anyone in film or TV "get" Leonard, and it was evident from the very first frame.

Friday, March 12, 2010

New TV series, JUSTIFIED. Check it out!


A couple of months ago, I saw a promo on TV for a new series that immediately made me sit up and take notice. It was a quick 30-second commercial, but instantly, I turned to my wife Mary and said, “That looks like an Elmore Leonard story.” I couldn’t remember the name of the show at the time but began watching for it to appear again. When it did, I saw this time that, indeed, it was a show based on an Elmore Leonard character. I’d grasped that immediately in the first frames of the promo. It just “looked” like a Leonard story and character.

I became genuinely excited. I’m a huge Elmore Leonard fan and had sworn off ever going to see any more of his work in a movie after what they did to his work in “Get Shorty.” I should have realized how bad they were going to mess that up when I saw John Travolta was going to star in it. Travolta should never even get near the set on a Leonard movie. Leonard has never written a character Travolta should play. Present-day Hollywood doesn’t “get” Leonard. He writes dark, dark, dark comedy, bordering on noir. My guess was that the Harvard MBAs in charge of “Get Shorty” didn’t grasp Leonard’s unique stories as his intelligence was above their paygrade. I thought perhaps it was just me and was gratified to read an interview with him about a year ago when he said pretty much the same thing and vowed never to let Hollywood ruin one of his novels ever again.

Then, they announced they were making a movie based on my favorite of Leonard’s books, Killshot, and I groaned. This book is a work of genius and they’ll probably get Travolta or Danny DeVito to screw it up…

And then… I saw this promo! Instantly, I knew this was a Leonard character. Just the “look” of the characters, the “action” of the brief scene, told me instantly this was something only Leonard could write. And it was. I knew it from the “feel” of the first frame of the promo. Now, I just hope it delivers. I have a feeling it will.

The series is called “Justified” and begins on FX at 10:00 pm EST on March 16, 2010. It’s based on one of his best characters, U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens.

The only thing that makes me wary is that I’ve since learned that most of the series is shot in California. One of the settings that’s crucial to the atmosphere of Raylan’s story is the state of Kentucky. I’m not sure how they can create that in La-La Land or how they’re going to make it look like Kentucky, but I’ll try to suspend my disbelief in that.

I can’t wait!

(For a great article on the show and a video of Elmore giving an interview, go to: http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/justified/elmoreleonard.php

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The Graveyard Shift guest column

The Graveyard Shift - Lee Lofland
There are no perfect crimes, merely imperfect investigations

GUEST COLUMN
Les Edgerton: Accuracy In Crime Novels

About Les:

Les Edgerton served a little over 2 years in Pendleton in the sixties on a 2-5 burglary charge (plea-bargained down from 82 counts of second-degree burglary, a count of armed robbery, a count of strong-armed robbery, and a count of possession with intent to sell). When he was in the joint, then-President Johnson declared Pendleton to be “the single worst prison in the U.S.” Les agrees with that assessment…

Since then, Les has earned a B.A. (With Honors of Distinction) from Indiana University and an MFA in Writing from Vermont College. He has published 9 books, taught creative writing at various universities, including the UCLA Writer’s Program, St. Francis University, and served as Writer-in-Residence at the University of Toledo and at Trine University. His work has been nominated for the Pushcart Prize, O. Henry Award, Edgar Allan Poe Award (short story category), PEN/Faulkner Award, Jesse Jones Book Award, Violet Crown Book Award (was awarded a Special Citation for his novel The Death of Tarpons), and others. A screenplay of his was a semifinalist in the Nichol’s Foundation Awards. The NY Times review of his story collection, Monday’s Meal, compared him favorably to Raymond Carver.
Currently, he resides in Ft. Wayne, IN with his wife Mary and their son Mike. Les has two daughters-Britney and Sienna-from a previous marriage. He teaches online classes for Writer’s Digest and provides novel coaching services for writers.
Les says, “When President Johnson came on TV to announce the results of his administration’s study that “Pendleton was the single-worst prison,” I was watching over in J Block and everyone stood up and began cheering and waving aloft a single digit. It was like our football team had just been named Number One. Quite a stirring experience. We knew then how Notre Dame fans felt…

ACCURACY IN CRIME NOVELS
(Depicting the criminal’s mind and behavior accurately)

I’d like to address a subject that’s bothered me for many years. I’m speaking of the way authors have routinely depicted the average criminal’s mind and behavior, which, in the main, have been largely inaccurate.

First, to establish my “bona fides” I am both a writer and an ex-con, having served about two years of a two-to-five sentence in the Indiana state prison at Pendleton, Indiana (for second-degree burglary) back in the sixties. I was originally charged with 82 burglaries, one count of armed robbery, one count of strong-arm robbery, and one count of possession with intent to deal. All of the charges were reduced to a single count of second-degree burglary via a plea bargain. I actually committed far more felonies-for instance, I did over 400 burglaries-but 82 was all my rap-partners could remember (or were in on-many I did solo) to roll over on me on-and so that’s the number I was charged with. The statue of limitations has run out on them now, so I can “fess up.”

One of the basic elements of good writing, in my opinion, is veracity. Not only should the author remain true to his personal version of truth, but his reportage should also be accurate. And, in the case of the criminal mindset and normal behavior, I see instance after instance in short stories, novels and movies where an inaccurate portrayal is the rule and not the exception.

Let’s look at three of the most common inaccuracies:

1. Inmates in prison hate child molesters.

Mostly hooey. It seems to be common wisdom these days that people on the bricks (”straights”) believe that inmates in prison hate child molesters and can’t wait to kill them. I disagree… to a point. Back in my time in prison (mid-sixties in a state joint, which is vastly different than a federal prison), nobody much cared about what you were in for. Actually, there weren’t many child molesters back then-child molestations, while they’ve always been around are infinitely more common these days than back then-but as long as they minded their business no one really bothered them or cared what they’d done. I can only remember knowing of one inmate who was a convicted child molester and nobody bothered him or much cared what he was in for. To be honest, a large number of people incarcerated have drinking or drug problems and when they’re on the sauce or high, pretty routinely abuse their own kids.

2. Inmates hate convicted cops.

Again, hooey. The few cops that were in the joint with me had more friends than anyone else, on average. The thing is, cops and outlaws interact with each other all the time on the bricks-at least the professional criminals do-and most of us like and even respect each other. There’s a very fine line between being a cop and a criminal, in my opinion. We’re both adrenaline junkies and is one of the chief reasons we become what we are in these two “career fields.” When I was “in the life” I used to hang out almost every night at a slop shop in downtown South Bend, before I went to “work,” and half the people there were off-duty cops and half were outlaws. We all got along well and if one of those guys got sent up, we were still friends.

3. Inmates claim to be innocent.

This is probably the biggest myth of all. Nobody claims to be innocent in the joint-even those few who are. If you were innocent and said so to other inmates, they would take that as a sign of weakness and you’d be in trouble. Where that comes from is when a reporter or researcher interviews an inmate, very often they’ll sing him a sad tale of woe about being bumrapped. The reason is, no matter how guilty the person is, once you’re inside, all hope has vanished. To be interviewed, especially by a sympathetic listener, the hope rises that enough bleeding hearts will read the article or see the show and be moved to do something to get the guy liberated. That it doesn’t happen doesn’t destroy the hope-they know it’s a long shot anything like that will happen, but it’s a glimmer of a hope and so they bring their acting chops to the table-probably even claim to have one of those b.s. “jailhouse conversions” and hope somehow their “story” (and that’s usually what it is-a story-will affect the right people’s hearts and a miracle will happen. I only knew one person when I was in who was truly innocent and there’s no way he would have claimed that to other inmates unless he really trusted they wouldn’t tell anyone else. That’d be suicide. In fact, when those who appear in documentaries and TV shows claim their innocence, the instant they’re back in the cellhouse they make sure to let everyone know they were just pulling a shuck.

Another thing they don’t publicize as it would destroy the common misconception. Of all those people who get freed from prison after an investigation or new trial, probably 90-some percent aren’t freed because they were found innocent. They’re freed because of a legal technicality. You can look that up.

For points #1 and #2, what I suspect has happened to lead to the hatred for child molesters and cops inside the walls is what has happened in just about all the instances of misconceptions about convicts. I think what’s happened is that movies romanticized this (inmates hating and killing child molesters) and inmates bought into this image of themselves for a variety of reasons–a typical reason being that people in prison are just plain looking for any kind of excuse to shank someone and this is as good a reason as any and even kind of makes the guy shanking a child molester look like a good or moral guy.

This is exactly what happened with Mario Puzo and his book and subsequent movie “The Godfather.” Puzo admitted he knew nothing at all about the Mafia and made up nearly everything about them that’s in his book. This guy was living in a suburb in Connecticut-sitting in his garage typing on a door laid out over two sawhorses-and had never even seen a mafiosa up close. What he was familiar with were insurance executives and stock brokers. Just about everything in the book was fabricated out of whole cloth.

The truth being, most Mafioso aren’t all that bright and are basically street thugs with fairly low I.Q.’s in general, but the movie glamorized and romanticized them with horse’s heads and “sleeping with the fishes” and “hitting the mattresses” and all the other stuff Puzo made up, so they just adopted the whole thing because it made them look much cooler than they actually were and are. Life imitated art. There’s just an awful lot of that going on in the public’s general perception of inmates and prisons.

The same thing happened with the cops being in danger in the joint myth. Some individual somewhere told a reporter that and the naive reporter (there’s a lot of those folks!) reported it as gospel and just like the child molester myth, that just gave cons an excuse to shank someone and feel “moral.” Now, of course, thanks to television and the movies, convicted cops are in danger.

The problem is, the vast majority of inmates in state prisons are operating with an average fourth-grade education and so aren’t likely to write screenplays or books (most can barely read), so the public only knows what a reporter or researcher tells them and inmates are almost never straight with them for all the above reasons and more. Ex-cons from federal joints are better-educated and sometimes do write articles and books, but the problem is federal joints are as different from state joints as a rowboat is from the Queen Mary. The next time I do a crime I’m going to do something that qualifies for a federal jolt first and then if I’m busted for something I’d do state time for, I’ll cop a plea on the federal beef and end up going there first, which means I’ll probably die in a federal prison before I do the state bit. Federal time is just a wee bit easier to do…

If you’ll have me back, Lee, I’ll tell the story of the period Charles Manson and his cellmate in Corcoran, Roger Smith (who bills himself as the “Most-Stabbed Inmate in History”-which he probably is-he’s been shanked over 300 times) kept calling me for a month to chat and with Roger begging me to write his autobiography and what happened then.

Thanks for having me!
Blue skies,
Les

P.S. Of the thousands of novels and movies I’ve experienced, the only time I’ve seen the criminal mind portrayed accurately (imo) was in the scene in Pulp Fiction where the guy shoots his best friend in the back seat of the car by accident. His reaction is the only honest depiction of the criminal mind I’ve yet seen.

Les Edgerton’s Hooked –The first and only fiction-writing book that focuses exclusively on beginnings–no other book on the market addresses story beginnings in a comprehensive manner.
Visit Les here. www.lesedgerton.com

Happy Birthday, Jane Friedman!
Posted in Guest columns | 7 Comments »

Interview on Hungry People website

Dear Les,
HungryPeople would like to thank YOU for agreeing to this interview. HungryPeople loves to provide exciting and thought-provoking insights on the art of living and working from people (from all walks of life).

Check out the site at http://hungrypeople.posterous.com to learn more about why we mean by thought-provoking.

Let's eat...

1. What do YOU do for a living?

Ans. Write books, teach writing online for Writer's Digest, and coach writers privately on their novels.

2. What's the best thing about being a writer?

Ans. Don't have to wear a tie or have business cards. Can write in the nude. All the groupie chicks. (I lied about the last one. I wish!)

3. How does one find their inner voice?

Ans. Drink lots of Jack Daniels. Only mix with water and/or ice and never pop unless you want to be considered a kid or a punk. Seriously, just write as if you're relating a story to your best friend who knows the same things you do. You'll use that "shorthand" voice you do in such a case and therefore end up with writing that trusts the reader's intelligence. Get rid of your thesaurus—there is no such thing as a synonym anyway. There's just the perfect word. The perfect word doesn't come in groups.

4. What's key to being a great writer?

Ans. Be willing to go deep inside you to that place everyone tries to hide from others and be willing to expose it, warts and all. Tell the truth.

5. YOU had an amazing life, tell us what YOU learned while serving time in jail? While being a homeless man?

In prison, I learned to always find something you can use as a weapon when entering a room. An ashtray, a beer bottle, a fountain pen. Always try to keep your back to a wall. Don't believe or trust anyone. While homeless, the biggest lesson I learned was to try not to go hungry. It's not always easy to accomplish that, especially when you don't have access to food. The Salvation Army has the best meals on holidays, except for the one in Baltimore. It's okay but I'd hesitate to give it four stars. New Orleans has the best food in shelters. Shelter food there is better than the best restaurants in Indiana. California is maybe the worst. They don't believe in meat in California—they're all ruminants and eat lots of grass dishes. At least, I think it's grass. (And not the good kind that you use in brownies.)

6. If YOU were Secretary of the Interior, what would YOU change in how we manage our prisons? What would be the top 3 things YOU would be remembered for after YOUR term?

Ans. This is easy! Except, I have more than three.
1.Provide real rehabilitation that leads to a real and good-paying job, not being a dishwasher or fry cook. There is virtually no rehabilitation these days and it's a big reason why people come back more than they ever have.
2. Get rid of those prisons as businesses located in other states. An inmate from Connecticut, sitting in a prison in Texas has lost his entire support system. Not to mention, many of them just warehouse prisoners and let them vegetate in a cell 23 hours a day.
3. Educate the politicians and media who have created all kinds of problems by scaring people about criminals unrealistically and without factual basis for their claims. Be aware that no matter where the institution is, doing time is never easy for anyone. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" is a moronic concept. I guess that's why politicians and the media use it so much—they're infinitely qualified to espouse on moronic ideas.
4. Spend more money on good mental institutions and separate the folks with mental problems from bona fide criminals. I'd guess that at least 60% (and probably more) of those incarcerated aren't really criminals in the traditional sense, but are mentally ill. The state just feels it's cheaper to warehouse them in prisons than provide mental health care.
5. Develop decent libraries. If funds are an issue, take the money spent on teaching them to get a G.E.D. and spend it on more books. People will (truly) educate themselves if they have sufficient books available. Getting a G.E.D. "looks" like an education, but it's b.s.
6. Make prisons safe for inmates. Being sent to an environment where chances are excellent you'll be assaulted or raped constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in every way and is unconstitutional.
7. Get wardens/superintendents out of the food business. Most are given a monthly budget for inmate meals and if they come under, they get to keep the rest. I don't think any of them use even close to the budgeted amount.
8. Police inmates working in the dentist's and doctor's offices better. In case you don't know it, they're stealing the Novocain and other drugs and watering them down. It's why nobody wants to go to the dentist—who wants your tooth pulled when your gums have been deadened with saline?
9. Get women out of male institutions, at least in population. That's the nuttiest idea so-called "progressives" ever came up with. Just makes doing time a thousand times harder. Give those women jobs holding the flag at construction sites. (Am I being a male chauvinist hog? Sorry!)
10. If you're going to "lock 'em up and throw away the key" at least provide a bed for each inmate.

7. Tell us more about the story of YOUR favorite quote: Never let anyone rent space in your head.

Ans. My son Mike and I saw an episode of "Candid Camera" where the setup was a shop in a mall where a sign was placed by the register that read: "No change given back today." As various people came up with their purchases, there are a variety of reactions. Some argued, some got mad, some withdrew their purchases. One guy came up, handed over a bill and was due 99 cents in change. The clerk pointed to the sign and told him, "Sorry, we're not giving change back today." He smiled, shrugged, and walked out with his purchase. The interviewer caught up with him and asked why he didn't react differently. "Because," he answered, "I never let anyone rent space in my head." Mike and I thought it was a perfect life philosophy. This is a guy in charge of himself!

8. What's YOUR favorite book?

Ans. The Stranger by Albert Camus. A close second would be anything by James Lee Burke (today's Faulkner), Harry Crews, Lee Child, Christopher Moore, Elmore Leonard (his Killshot would be my second-favorite book), early David Sedaris, Dennis Lehane, Robert Crais... oh, you just wanted one... my bad!

9. Who are YOUR personal heroes?

Ans. Thomas Jefferson, my wife Mary, Paul Newman, and the person who invented tennis shoes.

10. What are YOU hungry for?

Ans. I assume you mean food? My top three are Oysters Rockefeller, crawfish etoufe and crawfish bisque. None of which are available in Indiana, alas! At least not done well.

11. What's the best job in the world?

Ans. Being a stunt man in porno movies. Great pay, low hours, they never show your face, good union, big cheesy award ceremony once a year, kind of like the Academy Awards with sexier people... The only drawback is you have to like large animals. Seriously, I have the best job in the world. Nothing can possibly be better than being a writer. There's all those groupies, you know...

1.
Please include a short description about YOU including your own blog or businesses or advocacies.

I'm an incredibly rich, handsome man with a beautiful wife and three children. I live in paradise (Fort Hooterville Wayne, Indiana). All of my nine books are huge bestsellers and everybody wants me on their TV show and to give interviews for the NY Times. I'm 66, but I look about 30. I can bench press 6,000 pounds and am probably the best lover ever. I'm also a fiction writer, as perhaps you can tell by the above. The key to good fiction is to include about 2% of the truth and people will then believe the rest. The 2% that's true above is the stuff about my wife and kids.

The boring part of my bio is that I did time in Pendleton, got out, went to college and got my B.A. from Indiana University and an MFA in Writing from Vermont College. Among other things, I was a burglar, armed robber, worked as a male escort for wealthy older ladies, sold and did drugs, was an award-winning hairstylist, drove in high-speed car chases with the police (and got away), have been shot at and fired back several times, been beaten by the police but without anyone there to film it (I have to say I probably deserved it—I was kind of a smart ass), acted in an Indy movie (really bad one...), acted in commercials, coached youth baseball, hung around with rock stars (they actually do have groupies... serious ones with virtually no physical blemishes...), taught in various colleges and universities, and have nine books in print. I'm finishing up my memoir right now (tentative title: Adrenaline Junkie) which is a 350-page bio, basically, so if anyone reading this is interested, rush out and buy 10-15 copies when it comes out (Christmas is right around the corner and it'll make a perfect gift).

I coach writers on writing their novels and if interested you can check me out at: www.lesedgerton.com.

THANK YOU!

No... thank you, Jay! This was fun!
Blue skies,
Les
P.S. If my answers run too long please feel free to edit as you see fit.
Jay
Chief StoryTelling Officer
The HungryPeople team
http://hungrypeople.posterous.com

Be a fan on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/hungrypeople