Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
We're excited and delighted to introduce our next author, Kate Veitch.
Her second novel, "Trust" (following her breakout '08 debut, "Without
a Backward Glance") tells the story of a contemporary Australian family
whose personal crisis coincides with the devastating Victorian
bushfires of February '09. Her characters confront many of life's
curlier bits, including fidelity, grief, ambition, sexual identity, the
creative impulse, and what it means to be "a good woman."

Kate's a fifth generation Australian who describes her career path as
"more like a stumble through the jungle." Having left school at 15,
she worked in offices, restaurants, and bookstores. She became a
program maker with Radio National, wrote for Vogue for four years,
co-ordinated author tours to rural and remote areas (of which
Australia has rather a lot) and then became a property developer, which
she describes as "the perfect career prior to becoming a novelist."

She says she wrote her first novel "to impress her boyfriend" and we
can't tell whether that's tongue-in-cheek or not, and now she's got
the bug. She divides her time between the boyfriend's San Francisco
flat and their home in the rolling green hills back of Byron Bay, in
northern New South Wales.

Leading the conversation with Kate is Cynthia Dyer-Bennet. Cynthia is
currently freelancing as a book publicist and works part-time as an
in-home caregiver for the elderly. She's been a WELL member since 1993,
and served on WELL staff for a decade (1998-2008). She's been a
co-host of the <cooking.> conference(http://www.well.com/conf/cooking)
for 16 years. She lives in northern California with her husband, their
cat Wacky, and 341 jars of homemade blackberry jam.
  

    

Thanks for the introduction, Julie. I thoroughly enjoyed reading
"Trust" and I'm looking forward to this conversation!

For those who aren't already familiar with Kate and her work, check out her
web site for more about her, about "Trust" and about her debut novel,
"Without a Backward Glance":

              http://www.kateveitch.com
  

    
Hi there Cynthia, hi everybody! I'm excited to be an Inkwell author
for this next couple of weeks, and I'm looking forward to a lively
conversation.
  

    

Hi Kate. I just loved "Trust" -- what a storyteller you are! The plot
line is so compelling, so powerfully told, it's hard to put the book
down.

As a fiction writer, you're free to create any reality, yet in "Trust"
you've built a tale that uses so many factual events -- from Rafael
Nadal's win over Federer in the Men's Tennis Open to Australia's
horrendous bushfires of 2009 -- as background to your story. 

Why not just make up all the bits? Why is it important to you to
ground your novel in the real events you bring into your work?
  

    
I guess the short answer, Cynthia, is that I don't write fantasy! What
fascinates me is the terrain between people's public lives – what we
say, how we present themselves – and the internal life:
all the thoughts and feelings which, for so many reasons, remain
unvoiced, undemonstrated. Fictional characters can illuminate that
terrain very powefully. But for the reader to believe in these
characters and their dilemmas, they need to feel that the characters
could be actual people, known to them, or at least knowable.

BTW – it's interesting, the various assumptions people have about what
fiction is. I remember a good friend of mine who ONLY reads
non-fiction saying to me years ago, when I was urging him to read the
occasional novel: "Why would I want to read something that's made up?"
(I'm pleased to tell you Cynthia that he's read both my novels and,
like you, couldn't put them down!).  And sometimes people assume that
if a novel uses actual events and characters who seem very real, then
it must be a thinly disguised autobiography.
  

    

Well of *course* we assume that, Kate. And if we happen to know the author,
as I do you, we also wonder whether some of our own history or quirks have 
been built into the characters the writer has created.

eg: one of your characters has a problem with night vision and light
distortion. I remember complaining to you some time ago about my problems
with my night vision due to light distortion. So of course I fancy that
I've inspired you to give my night vision problems to one of your
characters.

Up until now I've been too cool to ask, though. In fact, I won't. But I
will ask how much of your various characters' personalities have been 
borrowed, or at least inspired, by people you know in real life? Did you
model anybody in "Trust" after yourself, and if so in what ways? 
  

    
Ah, fiction writers are perilous friends! Relentless scavengers, I
warn you: no comment or gesture is safe around us. Why, one Australian
author famously took out her notebook at a funeral and started
scribbling away. 

To answer the question you didn't ask, Cynthia: no, I didn't model my
character's night vision issues on YOUR eye problems. Rather, I stole
that handy nugget from another friend who lives at Point Reyes. He
mentioned on a visit that his doctor had forbidden him from driving at
night and I thought, Oh, that could be a useful plot device. And lo, so
it proved to be ... 

Let me give you an example of how broad my scavenging can be. I
started thinking one day about how many real men I know had contributed
(all unwittingly) to the creation of Gerry Visser, one of the main
characters in Trust. I counted eight different guys before I got
distracted; there are probably more – though I will confess here that
my ex-husband has the lion's share of Gerry's attributes. Gerry's
better looking, though. 

And since you ask, Cynthia, there are certain aspects of Susanna's
character and experiences that I have pillaged from my own life. Over
the 20 year course of my first marriage, I gradually gave up all
creative work, because my former husband was so resentful of it. A
simple matter to turn my writing into Susanna's visual art. The tragic
events that she depicts her artwork are all real world incidents that
have haunted me. And some of the things the couples therapist says to
Susanna and Gerry are pretty much direct quotes from the therapists my
ex and I saw.

Yep, it's True Confessions time here on Inkwell, folks!

However – I do not have a sister at all, let alone one who is a former
junkie turned born-again Christian. 
  

    

>  my ex-husband has the lion's share of Gerry's attributes.
> Gerry's better looking, though.

ouch! 

Speaking of Gerry's attributes, he's such a powerfully drawn character.
He's intensely self-centered, is essentially unable to put himself into
anybody else's shoes, and although clearly very charming, he's more than
a bit of an MCP. 

Australian men are widely believed to be male chauvinists. By creating
Gerry, you've added to the existing reputation. Yet chauvinism is hardly
a trait limited to the men Down Under, nor is it by any means a
universal quality of Aussie males. 

Did you have any qualms about creating a character who reinforces the
national stereotype? Do you think Aussie men are generally more chauvinistic 
than men of other nations? 
  

    

Yours is an interesting take on Gerry, Cynthia.  To me he was the 
thinnest character in the book.  All the other characters were fleshed 
out and deeply compelling.  Not so Gerry.  

Men may often select a less accomplished mate, yes, but a plain one?  When 
he was so good-looking?  And an architect living in a dump of a house?  I 
understand the cliche about the shoemaker's children, but I can't quite 
imagine Gerry hanging on for 20 years without making improvements.  He 
doesn't sound like a DIYer, but what about infill?  What about his social 
presentation?  He cared about his appearance and his reputation a lot.  He 
also was highly invested in his family and the well-being of his children.

Anyway, that's a minor quibble.  The book is stellar and thought-provoking. 
I'm happy to have read it and to have been invited to discuss it.
  

    
Welcome, Wickett, so pleased to have your take on Trust. And
fascinating to see how readily different opinions emerge. Gerry Visser:
the guy so many readers love to hate! I mean, Gabriel's an out-and-out
baddie, but Gerry is slipperier than that, by far.

First, Cynthia's comment that <Australian men are widely believed to
be male chauvinists>  Are they? I don't think I knew that. I rather
suspect that there's a characteristic Australian directness or
bluntness, in both men and women, which is often construed in the US as
simple rudeness, or at least a lack of subtlety or sophistication.

I will say this: there's been a huge generational shift to do with
gender relations, probably in both countries. The pre-Boomers (men born
before 1946) DO tend to have much more chauvinistic attitudes toward
women. Not that boomer blokes are all SNAGs (Sensitive New Age Guys),
by any means!

A relevant aside: I think this generational shift was exemplified in
the attitudes of two succeeding Prime Ministers to making an apology to
the Aboriginal people of Australia, especially for the long-held
practice of removing mixed-race children from their Aboriginal families
(called The Stolen Generations). The pre-boomer PM, John Howard,
refused repeatedly to countenance such an apology. The post-boomer PM
who succeeded him, Kevin Rudd, did so, and "Sorry Day" was a hugely
important moment in recent Australian history -- and one I reference in
Trust, as the character Jean struggles with her own issues of
forgiveness and apology.
 
  

    
Wickett, I take your comments about Gerry.  Gerry IS indeed full of
contradictions, partly the result of his character, which is both
intensely competitive (one male Australian reviewer described him as a
smug sef-centred prick) and also loyal - in his way, despite his
infidelities - and loving. 

<Men may often select a less accomplished mate, yes, but a plain one? 
When he was so good-looking?>  
There are a couple of references in the novel to the woman he was with
before meeting Susanna, a talented beauty who rejected his proposal of
marriage. Gerry's ego took such a hammering from that that he then
chose a biddable, unglamourous wife, someone he could safely have a
family with, which he strongly desired. (After all, he can still have
his glamour and adventures away from home.)

<And an architect living in a dump of a house?>  
This telling detail I scavenged (as per earlier part of the
conversation) from an acquaintance in Melbourne, a renowned architect
who does indeed live in the same dump of a house that he and his wife
bought over 20 years ago, when their kids were little. Why has he never
renovated their house? I don't know; I've never asked him. I just
purloin the fact and use it for fictive purposes.

For Gerry, I think he's not only focused on the Public World, outside
the home, it may also be a kind of test of Susanna's uncomplaining
nature. Rather like an undisciplined child, Gerry keeps pushing the
boundaries to see when his wife will complain, or put her foot down and
insist that one or another renovation plan goes ahead. She doesn't.
The only member of the family who grumbles is Stella-Jean, whose
personality is more like her father's: driven to achieve.

Now here's another question: why does Gerry insist that the house WILL
be renovated toward the end of the novel, after so much has changed?? 


 
  

    

Hi Kate!  I also really enjoyed the book and now I have to read the first 
one!

I missed the reference to Sorry Day, I'm afraid, and I was also mystified 
by some of the slang.  Was it fossicked?  fosdicked?  Something like 
that.  What does it mean?

And I have a problem with the night vision thing!  It made perfect sense, 
of course, but I felt like it telegraphed what was about to happen, and 
then lessened the shock.  Jeje was one of my favorite characters!
  

    

Mmmm, interesting again.  Not my take, Linda.  Oh, the consequences of just
another loose end, a snippet of unfinished business, a nick to one's 
pride and independence, a moment of not trusting quite enough to 
communicate completely.  What was going to happen was obvious.  When it 
did, my heart still stopped.
  

    

> Cynthia's comment that <Australian men are widely believed to
 be male chauvinists>  Are they? I don't think I knew that. <

It's a widely held belief, Kate. Google "Australian men + chauvinist" and
you get 102,000 hits. (25K for Italian men, 18K for Mexican men, by
comparison). When I moved to Australia back in 1970, friends warned
me to watch out for those MCPs down under. And I still see people today
assume that women are considered "less" in Australia. But that wasn't 
my experience. Maybe it's because I lived in urban areas, where 
the "old ways" are discarded before they are in rural places. 



> Rather like an undisciplined child, Gerry keeps pushing the
 boundaries to see when his wife will complain, or put her foot down and
 insist that one or another renovation plan goes ahead. She doesn't. <

> why does Gerry insist that the house WILL
 be renovated toward the end of the novel, after so much has changed <

Those two things fit together, I think. Gerry is a bully; he's used
to getting his own way by simply push-push-pushing for what he wants,
regardless. So when he insists about the renovation at the end of the
novel, I think he's thinking (maybe unconsciously) that he can keep
what he's got -- a docile wife who defers to whatever he wants -- he
he sticks to his patterns of bullying. 

What do you think, Kate? You wrote it!
  

    
Gotta say, I'm in 7th heaven already. To have intelligent, thoughtful
readers discuss my book with me in depth, with plenty of time for
back-n-forth and rumination – this has got to be every author's dream!

Now, to your points:
  

    
<I was also mystified 
by some of the slang.  Was it fossicked?  fosdicked?>

Castle, hi, and welcome.  The slang.  In my first novel, the US
publishers wanted to change every single bit of slang, and while I was
willing to change some, there were many expressions that were too
important to lose. We ended up with a glossary: quite cute, really.
(You can read a piece a wrote about the process of "translating" that
novel into American, published in the national daily The Australian, on
this page of my website: http://www.kateveitch.com/kate/articles.html

This time, different editor, and less money available for such
nit-picking = no changes and no glossary either!

<Was it fossicked?  fosdicked?  Something like 
that.  What does it mean?>

Doubtless I used the word fossicked at some point. Is it possible that
this is not known to the entire English-speaking world? (One always
thinks one's own vernacular is standard, no?) To fossick is to ... to
rummage, I guess ... to look for something in a fairly aimless manner.

You'll find the (fleeting) reference to Sorry Day on p 174 - though I
didn't use that specific term, more described the situation.

It's fascinating to me, what's understood by readers and what remains
a mystery...
  

    
The night vision thing –

Again: two very different takes from different readers. For Castle,
the "seeding" of references to Jean's problem <telegraphed what was
about to happen, and then lessened the shock.>

For Wickett, who read it as character-driven, <a nick to one's 
pride and independence>, plus the plot-driven moment, even though you
could see it coming, <my heart still stopped.>  Oooh, I love making
people's hearts stop!

Myself, I've been astounded by the number of readers who've told me
the crash came as a complete shock.  I thought I had "seeded" it pretty
darn clearly -- though I hope not so much as to make it "ho-hum".

Jee-jee was one of your favourite character, Castle?  I do enjoy
finding out who people relate to most strongly. Why was she a fave for
you?
  

    
<Google "Australian men + chauvinist" and
you get 102,000 hits.>

Hooley dooley, that's a lot of MCP's! FOUR TIMES as many as for
Italian men? I'm flummoxed! Cynthia. 

What can I say? Blokes are blokes, and not that much different, in my
experience, to guys (US style). Like me, you found the myth of
excessive Aussie chauvinism not borne out by the reality of actually
living in Australia.  Urban areas? I've lived in rural areas a lot too,
and find men there just as inclined to be sweeties there as they are
in the cities. Or not, as the case may be.

I do suspect (as in earlier parts of conversation) that a lot of the
mythology about the rampant Aussie chauvinist refers to an earlier
generation.
  

    
The second part of your post, Cynthia, ie #13, about the house
renovations and Gerry's bullying: what can I say but that you have got
it exactly right. Hammer fight on the nail!
  

    
re last post: That would be "hammer RIGHT on the nail", rather than
"fight".
  

    

>  What can I say? Blokes are blokes, and not that much different, in my
 experience, to guys (US style). <

Agreed.

> In my first novel, the US
 publishers wanted to change every single bit of slang <

I remember you talking about that when you were going through it with your
editors on "Without a Backward Glance," Kate. It struck me as silly then,
especially when your editor insisted that "footpath" would be confusing
and that you should be substituting "sidewalk" instead. 

But I already had some background in Aussie slang. With <castle> testifying
to her confusion about "fossick" I can see that perhaps it wasn't such an
odd idea after all. And I must say that I got a little flummoxed, albeit
it briefly, by your use of "hosed" in "Trust." I'd never heard the phrase
in Australia when I lived there, and here in the States it means ... um ...
er ... screwed/in a difficult situation. Based on context, "hosed" in
Australian means all organized, tidied, ready and rarin' to go. 

But I love the quote from your Aussie agent -- "We have had to work out
what sidewalks and sophomores and jelly doughnuts are, can't they use a
bit of nous and work out our expressions?" -- that you use in Weekend
Australian (http://www.kateveitch.com/downloads/WeekendAust120108.pdf)
and your follow-up comment:

"The world is homogenising fast enough."

No kidding! The Aussie-ness of your books are part of what make them
enjoyable, Kate. It's like so much of Australian life is like what we
have in the USA, but not quite. There a differences in vocabulary, in
attitude, in culture that are fun to discover as we read your work. 

When you wrote your first novel, did you have any thoughts about seeing
it published outside of Australia, Kate?
  

    

(small aside: offsite readers with comments or questions can send email to
<inkwell@well.com> to have them added to this conversation)
  

    

I seem to be a contrary voice here.  Oh well.

An appendix seems the way to go, rather than altering indiginous slang,
which, it seems to me, is part of the essential Australian character of the
novel.  If the publisher won't provide, you, Kate, can always send the
proofs to your US friends to compile a word list!
  

    
Australian slang is one of those things, like marsupials, that we tend
to take for granted. It owes something to British slang, but has a lot
of indigenous words and phrases.

Yes, Castle, I would have liked the US publishers to provide a
glossary for "Trust", although there's less slang in this book than in
my first, "Without a Backward Glance" (due to parts of WaBG being set
in the 60's and 70's, when language was less homogenous.)

I'm more than happy to try and explain any puzzling words or phrases
to curious readers.

Cynthia, your reference to "hosed" in #20, above: actually, it's part
of a phrase, "home and hosed", kind of like "done and dusted" (which i
hope is not mystifying in its turn!) I've always understood "home and
hosed" to be a horse-riding term, meaning that the horse was safely
back in its stable and settled, after the ride.  Context: in Chapter 1
of Trust, there's a conversation about the imminent US '08 elections,
and Gerry says that "if they had compulsory voting, like we do, Obama
would be home and hosed."

As I say, folks, I'm happy to elucidate any slang or other
puzzlements, to the best of my ability. Bring 'em in for inspection, by
all means!
  

    
And now that I've mentioned politics: for those who are interested:

Tomorrow – Australian tomorrow, that is, Saturday August 21, we have a
federal election. We don't vote for a Prime Minister, but for the
party of which they are leader. The Labor Party is roughly the
equivalent of the US Democrats, and the Liberal Party = your
Republicans. 

There was a change of leader in the ruling Labor Party a few months
back, which means we have the opportunity to actually vote, for the
first time, for a female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.  Her opponent
for the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, is an odious sharp operator, and
the two parties are neck and neck in the polls. Marginal seats will
decide the result.

A few big differences to your voting system: 
* no electronic voting machines: we mark paper ballots with pencils
* voting day is always a Saturday
* compulsory voting at all 3 levels of government: federal, state and
local. $100 fine if you fail to vote.
* Widespread use of early and mail ballots
* Voting stations in vast range of locations, no long queues, though
often quite the jolly atmosphere

* No other bills, issues, or offices are voted on: just the one
election. Government officials are appointed by the party in power, not
elected; likewise, they decide policy issues.

* Crucially, we use a preferential voting system, which means that if
the party you marked as your first choice doesn't win the seat, your
second choice will be counted. Thus, I can vote for the Green Party
candidate in my electorate, and although they are unlikely to win the
seat, this registers support for their policies.  Then, my second
preference, for the Labor Party candidate, will count. 

Here endeth the lesson!
  

    
Hi, Kate! I didn't have trouble with the slang at all--I could figure
it out in context, and I loved learning new words.

In fact, I'd like to say how beautifully I thought you did the
kids--they sound like authentic kids, not some grownup's idea of kids. 

A hundred dollar fine if you fail to vote. How much does the
government collect with such a law?