Authors sometimes
write themselves into their fiction. In my first Roland March novel, Back on Murder, Detective March is
assigned to investigate the apparent suicide of a fellow cop. On the dead man’s
phone, he finds a low res photo of a nude woman. He thinks he recognizes her,
despite the poor quality: she’s someone he has already interviewed, who seemed
to be lying about her relationship to the deceased.
Now March faces a
dilemma. This dead colleague was married, and March has already spoken to the
distraught widow. She’s suffered enough without having her late husband’s
infidelity coming to light. All he has to do to prevent that from happening is
erase the photo. His thumb hovers over the button as he considers.
What would you do? Here’s March’s answer:
“I
don’t have the whitewash gene. Part of me wants to cover for him -- not so much
for his sake as for hers -- but I know deep down that the unvarnished truth is
better than even a well-meaning deception. I’m not here to pretty things up, to
give [the widow] or anyone else a reassuring vision of the world as she thinks
it is. All I have to do is uncover the way things really are. I didn’t make
them that way, and I don’t have the power to change them. Even if it’s tempting
to think I do.”
The temptation to
“pretty things up” isn’t exclusive to detectives. Writers feel it, too,
particularly those of us working under the Christian fiction label. Some do it
without thinking, as a matter of habit, while others are pressured into it.
Pushing the button and making the objectionable truth disappear isn’t that
hard, after all, and you can tell yourself it won’t make a difference to the
quality of the story.
But as I said, some
authors write themselves into their fiction, and I’m one of them. Like March, I
don’t have the whitewash gene. I didn’t make the world the way it is, and I
don’t have the power to make it different. My goal as a writer isn’t to
reassure or to inspire. It’s simply to tell the truth.
The Revised English
Bible translates Ecclesiastes 12.10 this way: “He chose his words to give
pleasure, but what he wrote was straight truth.” If I had a life verse as a
writer, that would be it, my twin ambitions being to give pleasure through
well-crafted writing, while at the same time conveying a deep, even unsettling
honesty.
When we succumb to
the pressure to provide what March calls a “well-meaning deception,” often
there are unintended consequences. Tidy and sentimental fictions don’t change
our view of reality; they only undermine our confidence in the vision of those
who see the world that way. What are they afraid of admitting? Can’t their
philosophy stand up to the cold light of day? All those little deletions add
up, and you find yourself laboring at a disadvantage. This is why Flannery
O’Connor wouldn’t call her writing “Christian”:
“Unfortunately,
the word Christian is no longer reliable. It has come to mean anyone with a
golden heart. And a golden heart would be a positive interference in the
writing of fiction.”
In Back on Murder, March learns a little
bit about the unintended consequences of suppressing the truth. That photo he
was tempted to delete? It’s not exactly what he supposes at first. The picture
is part of a different story, a deeper layer he would never have discovered if
he’d followed through on his impulse to censor.
I’ve discovered the
same thing myself. The little truths we hide are often what keep us from
finding the greater truths, the ones that are only found at the end of long and
uncomfortable roads.
.
"The little truths we hide are often what keep us from finding the greater truths, the ones that are only found at the end of long and uncomfortable roads. "
ReplyDelete--J. Mark Bertrand
Adding this to my personal "quotes to save" journal...*: )