I have just returned from an inspiring evening in which we got to see Aussie author Charlotte Wood in conversation with Guardian Australia’s Katharine Murphy. It more than made up for our disappointment last year when Wood had to pull out of the Canberra Writers Festival due to illness. Tonight’s event was presented “in association with the Canberra Writers Festival” and had the support of the National Library of Australia where it was held.
As the post title suggests, the evening was framed around Wood’s latest novel, The natural way of things (my review), which is partly why I was very keen to go because this is a provocative book that doesn’t leave you in a hurry. Wood started by describing the set-up, and explaining that the main plotline is like any prison novel. In other words, the question is: Will they escape or won’t they? I liked the simplicity of this!
Anger and the book’s genesis
Murphy asked her to talk a little about her comment, elsewhere, that anger had inspired the book. Wood explained that she didn’t realise how angry she was when she started writing the book. She talked about hearing a radio documentary about the Hay Institution whose inmates were described by the government as the “ten worst girls in the state”. The anger-inducing thing is that these girls had all been sexually assaulted in some way, and had been locked up for “being in moral danger”. They were locked up because they were in moral danger? You can see why Wood was angry – why any of us would be – on hearing that. Why were the victims locked up?
Wood then explained that her original story was historical, realist, in style, and it wasn’t working. Then, because when you are writing, “everything is about your book”, she started noticing contemporary stories – the army girl raped by a co-cadet, the woman employee sexually harassed by the David Jones CEO, etc – and decided to try a contemporary approach …
… but, while she was writing it, Julia Gillard became Australia’s first PM, and she saw a photo of Gillard, Quentin Bryce, and Anna Bligh together. They presented such a positive picture of female achievement that she thought her book was no longer needed. We all laughed at that! She then spoke of the hatred directed at Julia and her own distressed reaction to this. This is where her writing comes in: art helps you understand incomprehensible things, she said, you can give them shape.
Later, during the Q&A, she spoke more on the anger issue. She’s uncomfortable with anger, she said – a little self-deprecatingly. She likes it when the book is described as “ferocious” or “fierce” rather than as “angry”. She talked about the importance of humour, of its being the essential companion to anger. (There is humour in the book, as I noted in my review). She quoted American thinker, Patricia Williams (she thought), who talks of the “gift of intelligent rage”. Wood saw this as anger/rage which encompasses positive energy.
The discussion then turned to the ending, and its ambiguity. Murphy worried that Wood seemed to be suggesting that the answer is “separatism, opting out”. The ending is certainly the aspect that gave me some pause. It wasn’t that image that bothered many readers of the women pouncing on the designer handbags. No, for me, as for Murphy, it was the ambiguity. I like ambiguity, but here I was a little uncertain about what I was taking away.
Wood’s response was helpful. She said the book has different endings depending on who you are following, and that some readers come away feeling triumphant, while others feel demoralised. She said that for Yolanda, her only liberation was to “separate” herself, to go feral, to become an animal in fact, but that wasn’t Verla’s answer. This gave me a little structure for my thinking.
While she doesn’t like to talk in terms of messages, she agreed that part of it was that in order to be free you have to separate yourself to a degree from a culture that hates women. This can mean not reading women’s magazines that hurt/harm you, not laughing at sexist jokes, and so on.
She talked about another issue that intrigued me, and that’s to do with the men – the prison guards – ending up being trapped too. This is where the balance of power started to shift a little – and is the part of the novel she liked writing!
Murphy then asked her “nerdy stuff”, that is, about her writing process. I won’t spend a lot of time on this (though nerdy me was interested too). I’ll just share a couple of comments. One was that although she now has five novels to her name, she is still always unsure when she sits down to write, but one thing experience has given her is that she is now “quicker at diagnosing problems”. She has also learnt more about the “craft” of writing, such as how to shape stories.
She described writing as hard – it’s hard making up stuff out of your head, she said. She knows when she’s got the momentum up – it’s when her current book is in her dreams, when she thinks about it as soon as she wakes up. She referred to her PhD on the cognitive aspects of creativity. She found some commonalities between writers, but knowing what these are doesn’t help you do it, she said! Encouraging eh?
Murphy asked whether she kept a notebook to jot down ideas she comes across, things she hears. She said she does this a bit, but wishes she did notebooks as well as Helen Garner. Mentioning the notebook excerpts in Garner’s latest book, Everywhere I look (my review), she said she admires “the precision of her [Garner’s] observations”.
Plausibility in fiction
Early in the conversation, Wood referred to some readers questioning plausibility in the book. I followed this up at question-time, as it was an issue in my reading group. I loved her answer because – as you regular readers here will see – it concurred with my views!
She said it depends, partly, on the sort of novel you’re writing. She wanted this novel to be strange and weird. Her usual benchmark is to ask what she herself would believe. Her question for readers is: “Are you going with it. If you start worrying about factual details, you risk missing out on what’s true.” Yes! So, in this book, in particular, she didn’t “care” much about plausibility. Her next book is more realist so the facts will matter more, but I got the sense that fundamentally she focuses more on what she is trying to do, to say, than on getting all the facts right.
There was more, but I’ll leave it here on my question – and conclude by saying that Wood came across as warm, natural (!), thoughtful, and openly sharing of herself. This made it a most enjoyable event – the hour went way too fast.
21 thoughts on “The natural way of things: Conversation with Charlotte Wood”
interesting post… when i think about how ideas get transmitted to paper, i seem to fall into a deep well of dissolving meanings… one idea leads to another, not in serial fashion, but in a sort of onion skin analysis in which descending through layers leads to not an ultimate truth, but a scenario devoid of any meaning at all… i know this most likely sounds a bit twee, but it’s a process that transcends language and rides on the known laws of physics and chemistry: probably as a result of overcontemplation of the quantum universe… my training is in geology, so that might account for it somewhat…
Love how our different backgrounds can affect the way we visualise or understand the world. Love your perspective mudpuddle.
i forgot: i actually only meant to wish you a happy IWD!
Ha ha mudpuddle, and backatcha!
She packed all of this into an hour? Gosh you got your money’s worth there….
That and more Karen – there was a discussion of covers, and Twitter, and more, as well.
Well that really was money well spent
Sure was, Karen!
Great write up, Sue. Thanks for sharing. The Natural Way of Things is certainly a book that stays with you. I had the good fortune to interview Charlotte Wood on a panel at the Newcastle Writers Festival and I listened to the documentary about the Hey Institution as part of my preparation. It helped me understand Charlotte’s anger and also the genius of what she did with it.
Thanks Angela – it is genius isn’t it. I loved the way she “chose” her characters – “army girl”, “cruise girl” etc. Any Australian would have picked the references straight away.
Thanks for sharing this, Sue:)
Thanks Lisa – these events are special aren’t they?
I don’t often get to them these days… they’re mostly at about six o’clock and that means a trek through the peak hour traffic or a crowded train, and I’m too idle to be bothered!
Yes, you’re right – they usually are. This was 6pm, but we struggle through Canberra’s peak hour! 😉
I love hearing about writers’ inspirations and motivations for writing what they write. Even when I haven’t read the book, which is the case for The Natural Way of Things (although I hope to at some point!).
I love this: “If you start worrying about factual details, you risk missing out on what’s true.”
Sounds like this was a worthy event!
It really was Naomi – and that point just made it, because it fed right to one of my main beliefs about fiction. As Charlotte says, the writer does need to capture you with her/his characters, but then just go with it, which is what I know I do. I will notice bad writing, cliched characters, boring ideas, but I rarely take note of whether “facts” are right or wrong because that’s not where my brain is.
This sounds such a painfully timely and powerful novel – I really must try and read it. I’m glad the event was so interesting.
Thanks Ian. “Painfully timely and powerful” is a good description. I’d be interested in your response if you got to read it.
What an enjoyable evening! And even better for her discussing so much about the book you read and discussed in book group. And very cool you got to ask a question!
Yes, all the stars aligned, Stefanie, which was great. And I rarely ask questions, as I get very nervous and self-conscious : | risk becoming inarticulate.
Pingback: The natural way of things: Conversation with Charlotte Wood | picardykatt's Blog