Reading as Writers

Archive for the ‘Ray Robertson’ Category

Once again, this discussion starts at the bottom and reads upwards. Please scroll down to begin.

119 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 14 December 2009 19:57:38 -0400
Frank, I’m still smiling after reading your note. Partly because I feel I’ve just been on a lovely vicarious cruise of South American ports and partly because I’m so impressed that you took with you a book you had no expectation of liking yet not only perservered in the reading but came away feeling you’d had a “voyage of discovery” on many levels…. wow. That’s some holiday! I also had no idea what “Beat” meant; there’s a couple of places in the book where Jack explains that it’s, essentially, short for ‘beatific’ — the original idea being a kind of search for joy and beauty in life. They got (more than) a little off track of course, but the intentions were actually noble. Turned out to be more of a musical association, a lifestyle, an appearance, after On The Road came out — which I don’t suppose was ever taken as Jack intended. An eye opening book for sure. I’ve got a copy of On the Road that I’m also going to read, but from what I understand, this was not Kerouac’s best book, merely his most famous. Funny how that works… Thank you so much for sharing your experience of the book club selection! (I could almost smell that sea air…!)

118 Frank Young
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 12 December 2009 18:46:49 -0400
20 Pages a day of What Happened Later by Ray Robertson By Frank B. Young First day at sea November 23rd 2009 I obtained this book free from guessing a correct answer to an obscure question posed by the WCDR book club, the answer to which, I must admit was a wild guess on my part. I must say at this point that it was not a book I would have chosen to buy or even borrow from the library. I do not have a very sophisticated taste in the books I read as a rule and usually stick to things that interest me. Being of the right age group I vaguely remember having heard of jack Kerouac and the Beat generation but never really knew what that was all about being too busy at the time working and helping raise our family. Day 11 somewhere between Ecuador and Peru December 2nd 2009 Well I had intended to read 20 pages a day and considered a cruise was a good way to do that. It hasn’t worked out quite that way but I am up to page 207 which if you divide by 11 equals (err let me see) yes 18.81 pages a day which isn’t bad. I must admit the first three pages put me off. Why? I asked myself, would I want to know any more about a drunken lout lying on the streetcar tracks. Nevertheless, I persisted and why am still not completely sure what the Beat generation was all about I have enjoyed the book so far. Now like Ray Robertson, I feel I must search the bookstores and local libraries for a copy of “On the Road” Even though Kerouac and I have absolutely nothing in common I feel somewhat of a bond having had my brilliant work rejected many times over the years. December 12 Home again I have not been on the road but I have had a voyage of discovery. This morning I was fortunate in being able to attend the December WCDR meeting, and who should be the speaker? Why yes, Ray Robertson himself. I must say I was impressed when he talked about reading out of your comfort zone. I intend to do a lot more of that in the future. Though not, I think, romance novels. 12

117 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 9 December 2009 18:52:26 -0400
Hi Sharon…Nice to see you. After reading your post I flipped to p.38 to see what magic, specifically, hooked you. As it happens, the chapter that begins on p.39 is one of my favourites, if not my favourite. The whole experience of ‘fame’ is so neatly put into perspective. I’ve said, probably a thousand times by now, that one of the things I love best about this book is the way it comes from such a ‘true’ place. And I don’t mean true in a ‘it really happened’ way. I couldn’t care less if any of it really happened; if you told me the real RR actually spent his childhood as a small girl in Hungary, and Jack Kerouac never existed at all, it wouldn’t affect one teensy aspect of how I feel when I read, or what I get from, the book. I think the magic in WHL is, as you say, the language, but also the integrity with which the characters are written. The details that are so spot on…a tough thing to achieve and maintain throughout as well as RR has done. I mean, does he ever miss even one beat? (no pun intended)

116 Sharon
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 9 December 2009 14:31:35 -0400
I’m a bit late in joining, but what the heck. I haven’t yet read anyone’s comments, so this is my unbiased take on What Happened Later. When I first started reading the book, it took me a while to get into it. I was up to about page 38 when I decided it was time to read a few more pages and then leave it, or keep going. Well, I kept going and couldn’t put it down. The prose is so fast (both Jack’s and Ray’s); it’s easy to read it that way, but even better to go back and savour all of the words. I love Jack Kerouac’s writing, the whole beat era (esp. Lawrence Ferlinghetti – the first book of poetry I ever bought) and I think Ray’s writing has kept up Jack’s pace. I also happen to love Jim Morrison and that whole era – so this book has a lot of me in it. Just wish I could write this good. My thoughts certainly go as quick as Ray’s writing sometimes, it’s just getting it down. Anyway, that’s my take on What Happenes Later. I’m really looking forward to seeing Ray on Saturday.

115 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 8 December 2009 15:49:40 -0400
There’s a write up in (past) Events; I had a grand time! Thanks to everyone for coming out and making our first B&B so darned fun.

114 James
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 7 December 2009 23:37:23 -0400
Bevvies and Books was an unqualified success! Thank you Carin for putting this together. I enjoyed it immensely, from hearing each person’s favourite passages being read, to the discussions, to the
great food, to the wonderful reading by Lucy Brennan of passages from James Stephen’s wonderful book, The Crock of Gold. This get together had everything. Let’s do this again soon!

113 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 7 December 2009 23:21:24 -0400
What a fabulous evening! Thanks to everybody who came out – and thank you Carin SO MUCH for organizing it and leading it. Your passion for the book comes through clearly in this website, but it came through even more clearly in person. What a delight. That was fun!!

112 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 6 December 2009 15:14:54 -0400
To continue the Jack theme; I’m officially now pretty crazy about him. I know I know, what a noxious bit of space he occupied and blech to his whole stupid mess of a life…but. But but but. He loved that Georgia pine. He felt that ’seasons were to places what souls were to people’. He held a kitten named Tyke up so he could see the moon and asked how science could explain that. He knew that a story needed “… a flesh and blood body on the other side of the book telling the story and not just a bunch of nouns and verbs and adjectives held together under house arrest by a bully bunch of rules of composition some mastermind mammon cooked up to keep everybody talking and thinking and living the exact same way. Because ask yourself this, Mac: Were we born and do we suffer and do we die just so we can all sound the same? What a spit in God’s eye, that.” (p.227) Because all he really wanted was “…to be Cervantes alone by moonlight.” I’m so glad RR ended the Jack storyline in midstream, with Jack on a (for him) high, despite the fact that his wife had left him and he was penniless, but “…none of it mattered because someone–him–had finally kicked American Literature’s tired ass into the twentieth century.” I love that “He felt like a character in a novel who realizes something.” And I especially love that the last image we have of Kerouac (though we know he has a long pitiful road ahead of him) is this: “He took a long drag on his cigarette. He let the stars swallow him.” As I’ve said before, I can’t imagine this story being told in any other way. It’s blinking genius from start to end. Next installment, my thoughts on the Ray character. How about yours?

111 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 28 November 2009 15:23:50 -0400
Ruth, I like Jack too. He may have ten thousand problems but who is he screwing up other than himself, right? I mean, he’s not an evil guy. (Neither is he Ghandi of course; he probably has the normal amount of prejudice and misogyny that American men of his generation were blessed with.) As a character, as RR has portrayed him, I find Kerouac quite fascinating (though would not want to live with him) and can’t help agreeing with much of what he says… I read something completely unrelated recently that, coincidentally, quoted Kerouac’s views on the importance of living a good life; ‘good’ as in valuing the important things: work, friends, family, love, truth, decency. I believe this was a troubled man, certainly, but also one with much, much more to him… and not just the guy with the clown nose that he ended up portraying for people. Deep sigh. Oh god. Now I have to do math again.

110 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 28 November 2009 15:00:46 -0400
Peter, I saw your comments in Favourite Bits; glad you’re enjoying various aspects of the book. I knew it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea but, as you say, there’s so much to be learned from reading outside our normal box. Like seeing with fresh eyes. And thanks for opening up the discussion to stylistic elements… a whole huge subject in itself! I found the italicized dialogue took some getting used to, but after that not a problem. There’s a trend, I think, in publishing, towards quotation-less dialogue. What I didn’t love initially (but soon realized was perfect and couldn’t be otherwise) was the use of his own name as the young boy. Then as the stories merge it all begins to make sense (and is so beautifully enhanced by the last line); everything written about ‘Jack the character’ has actually come from ‘Ray the character’, and the boy, even as he’s telling us the story, KNOWS the story. (But what story does he know? It’s all fictional; Ray wasn’t in that car with Joe and Jack…) Makes your head spin. I guess that’s the point. (Can you imagine this story being told any other way?) I’m looking forward to hearing him talk about the process of writing; very curious to know the outlining process for this and if he wrote it initially in alternate chapters or not.

109 Ruth
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 28 November 2009 00:10:57 -0400
Okay. I’ve been away and now the book is upstairs and I’ve read all your comments and I think you have all posted up the quotes I love. But I have to say that the idea of enjoying Ray more than Jack — well, I totally get that. Of course I enjoy Ray more…well, I guess I feel more protective of him. I mean, why else would that bit about the filling of the doughnut falling on the seat of the car stick with me so much? I cringed before I even heard his dad’s voice because, of course, I’d been there in that damn car seat. Only mine was ice cream. Enough emotional dishing. What I adore about Jack is that he is, to me, absolutely a realized being. I shouldn’t care about this man who had his chance — he’s no Ray, right? Only I also know that fictional Jack was a lot like fictional Ray and if things had gone differently – fictional-based-on-real-Jack Jack might have had such a different ability to make his way through his genius. And so, despite the abhorrent behaviour and loutish goings-on, I feel quite tender about Jack and his stalwart Pancho. Yes. I said it. There is a bit of windmill tilting here too. Not sure where it is, but I think it may have something to do with “Belief and Technique for Modern Prose”. I smell windmills all over that one and I so want to hang those words on my wall to remember each and every day why the H. E. Double L. I do this thing. And PULEEZE can we use a non-number AntiSPAMbot technique?!?!? I can’t always access my calculator…

108 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 27 November 2009 12:26:25 -0400
Wow, thanks for that, Sue. That is fascinating. I’d like to comment on what is so far my favourite line from the book. “The next time he came back home, it wasn’t.” Now, that’s something I can relate to. There is a point in your life where you go back home to see parents or whatever, and something has changed. The concept of “home” has changed physically and in your mind. It was fascinating how Robertson played on that concept for this scene. For me, it was one of those “I wish I’d written that” sentences!

107 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 25 November 2009 13:27:39 -0400
Now when I am reading I’m stopping every other page and thinking THIS is what I want to comment on! then three pages later, NO THIS! I want to talk about this!! But actually THIS is what I’m going to talk about today: When I was studying with Natalie Goldberg one time, she read us some of Kerouac’s “Belief and Technique for Modern Prose”. Except that I forgot that it was Kerouac and I forgot what it was called. But when I encountered it again on page 111, I thought, “That’s it!” and googled it. I insert the results below. A couple of pages later Jack talks about his writing. “The novel is dead,” Jack said. “I should know, I helped write the corpse cold years ago.” And the reason it was dead was because “Life hasn’t got a plot, so honest art shouldn’t have one either.” A little later Jack’s revelation while he was living through the experiences that he would later record in “On the Road” – “Oh my God, this is what litereature is supposed to sound like – one man simply telling another man the simple humiliations and agonies and always-too-late epiphanies that add up to his and everybody else’s life – and not a sack of tricky tropes to be toted out and professionally employed in order to expertly con the reader into imagining a pretty little Book Club-approved daydream.” (And isn’t THAT an ironic thing to be posting on this website!) And then the question farther down the page: Maybe because life doesn’t have a plot, maybe that’s precisely why a novel needs one.” I glue myself to that last idea. I think that’s why the vast majority of books sold are genre books. Why Harlequins don’t do print runs less than 50,000 as we heard at breakfast a few months ago. Because we want our literature to have a plot. And if possible, without feeling too Hollywood, a happy ending. JACK KEROUAC BELIEF & TECHNIQUE FOR MODERN PROSE LIST OF ESSENTIALS 1. Scribbled secret notebooks, and wild typewritten pages, for yr own joy 2. Submissive to everything, open, listening 3. Try never get drunk outside yr own house 4. Be in love with yr life 5. Something that you feel will find its own form 6. Be crazy dumbsaint of the mind 7. Blow as deep as you want to blow 8. Write what you want bottomless from bottom of the mind 9. The unspeakable visions of the individual 10. No time for poetry but exactly what is 11. Visionary tics shivering in the chest 12. In tranced fixation dreaming upon object before you 13. Remove literary, grammatical and syntactical inhibition 14. Like Proust be an old teahead of time 15. Telling the true story of the world in interior monolog 16. The jewel center of interest is the eye within the eye 17. Write in recollection and amazement for yourself 18. Work from pithy middle eye out, swimming in language sea 19. Accept loss forever 20. Believe in the holy contour of life 21. Struggle to sketch the flow that already exists intact in mind 22. Dont think of words when you stop but to see picture better 23. Keep track of
every day the date emblazoned in yr morning 24. No fear or shame in the dignity of yr experience, language & knowledge 25. Write for the world to read and see yr exact pictures of it 26. Bookmovie is the movie in words, the visual American form 27. In praise of Character in the Bleak inhuman Loneliness 28. Composing wild, undisciplined, pure, coming in from under, crazier the better 29. You’re a Genius all the time 30. Writer-Director of Earthly movies Sponsored & Angeled in Heaven http://www.poetspath.com/transmissions/messages/kerouac.html And also, in researching that, I actually read some bio stuff on Kerouac himself. Amazing how much I’ve already picked up from reading the book. It’s a really cool version of “show don’t tell” about research! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kerouac

106 carin
Check the ‘Sign of the Times’ category (under Topics for Discussion, to the right); I’ve written about those swivel stools too! The sad thing is that there’s so few places left like that. I wonder if anyone will be writing nostalgia about Starbucks thirty years from now? One of the things I do love best about the book is the way RR is able to so firmly, so seamlessly, and without gimmick, place us in these (very) separate worlds. I mean, can you get more ordinary than Ray’s perfectly lovely suburban family? It’s like a icy shower when you then turn the page and begin the next ‘Jack’ chapter. But, amazingly, we’re taken into that world also… making it even more hilarious to come back to Ray’s and see the (simplicity of) truth through HIS eyes. I never get tired of reading this. It’s like a delicious painting to me. I notice something new every time I dive in. So glad you’ve come back to it!!!

105 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 24 November 2009 11:30:50 -0400
OK, I’ve re-read a lot of the beginning of the book, this time paying more attention. Although this book is not my cup of tea, I have to say, Ray has caught the “voice” of Kerouac well. I can only wonder how much time, effort and research went into carrying that off. Someone recently posted on here – Carin, I think – that he captures the essence of the times well, and that is bang on. I’m a lot older than Ray, but that scene in the diner with the white vinyl swivel seats transported me back to my teens – except the vinyl was red in our diner. I’m enjoying the book more rereading parts a second time. This book accomplishes what I aspire to – literary writing that is also hilariously funny in places. I am appreciating it on a new level for that reason alone.

104 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 23 November 2009 08:57:48 -0400
I just passed the part with the sandwich. The scene about riding the bus with his mother and eating in the diner is also priceless. What I’m discovering is that as a reader, I relate to Ray much more than Jack. As a writer, I appreciate the complexity of what Ray does in the book by weaving the two lives together.

103 James
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 22 November 2009 22:28:33 -0400
I’m with you Dorothea on the French GI Joe scene. I laughed so hard. I could just see him walking up to his mom with it, that look of horror on his face. Ray isn’t clear whether his grandmother knew it was French all along, or that once realized, the poor fellow would spend the rest of his life as a POW!

102 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 22 November 2009 17:33:15 -0400
I want to go back earlier in the book. I have to say, the whole scene with getting the French-speaking GI Joe from his grandmother is hilarious. The humour in the book is charming. I’d also like to say that I haven’t been reading this book as a writer, which is entirely against the rules. I’ve been reading it as a reader. I promise I’ll pay more attention from now on. Really.

101 James
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 21 November 2009 10:47:32 -0400
Sorry to have missed posting for a few days, but here are the highlights for me from the book pages 41 to 123: The juxtaposition of the relationship between young Ray and his parents (particularly his father) and the relationship between Jack and Joe is one of the most intriguing and well written aspects of the book. Ray’s young perspectives on the things important to a young boy are insightful, endearing and often comical. Even the elements of his worshiping Jim Morrison and the Doors while raising “Going Down the Road” (which he hasn’t read) to its place of idolatry contain a poignancy that is difficult to resist. Opposed to this is the netherworld of bennies, booze, hangovers and rants. The relationship between Jack and Joe changes with Jack’s moods: chauffeur and debutante; enabler and addict; babbler and listener; bodyguard and star; sinner and forgiver; husband and wife. I found Jack’s Buddhist ravings a convenient excuse for his misbehaviours, and I don’t buy any of it. As I indicated few days ago, I went through a “road” phase in my life, and I find it hard to read this book in places. I was the Joe to a few Jacks in my life, mostly because I could drive better than any of them, and I wouldn’t put my life in their hands EVER to let them drive. As Robertson recounted earlier in this book, every drunk/addict is taking the slow way to the grave because they don’t have the courage to suicide, or they’re afraid if they do they’ll just end up in a worse place for eternity. Something eats away at them like acid. Dealing with whatever is going on inside them is a torment infinitely worse than a Brandy hangover. Nobody in that frame of mind can ever be trusted to drive just in case they get that split second of courage and decide to end it the fast way. The best bit of writing in the book so far has to be the tale of Sammy. (pg 101 – 103) that brilliant, vibrant literate influence on Jack when he was young, Sammy’s tragic, horrible death and the meaning of bravery: “but it had been a long, long time since he’d felt like he wanted to be brave.” I am enjoying
Robertson’s capacity for understatement and innuendo with these Jack segments. I also like the way the POV fluctuates between Joe and Jack, even though we know almost nothing about Joe except his dead wife and runaway son. Joe’s reasons for drinking and carousing are becoming more evident. I think it important to add that Joe is very likely consuming just as much as Jack is, or perhaps a different kind of inebriant cocktail mixture. To each his own, as they say. I like the way the themes jump from one scene to the next, one POV to another. Ray’s cleverness as a writer is delightful and subtle.

100 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 20 November 2009 23:12:34 -0400
Okay, my entry today is going to be about page 73 – where the very young Ray plans to leave home. He leaves the note “I HATE YOU!” on his mom’s ironing board. But then he gets distracted by his GI Joes, and by the time he’s finished playing with them he’s hungry and running away from home doesn’t seem like such a good idea anymore. The note is gone, but on the kitchen table “there was a Kraft cheese slice and Miracle Whip and lettuce sandwich surrounded on every side of the plate by a couple handfuls of Fritos. It was my all-time favourite sandwich.” The young Ray puzzles about why would somebody do something nice for somebody else if they’d done something bad to them? I love the way Jack’s Buddhism, pseudo or not, is woven in with Ray’s grappling with philosophy at a whole other level.

99 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 20 November 2009 23:03:47 -0400
We’ve been getting spam on here (which I keep deleting, although everybody’s responses to it are so entertaining I’m tempted to leave it on!) so this is a test of the new anti-spam measures. Lets see if they work. And Carin – thanks for the comments re: Cam – he is indeed an interesting kid!

98 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 20 November 2009 22:15:27 -0400
Sue, you said something about Cameron liking both Kerouac and Morrison…I think that’s a good thing. As with young Ray, he’s very likely attracted to their words and brains, not their lifestyle. And, like Ray, he’ll figure it out. I’m thinking of the scene in the book where Ray’s friend calls and tells him that Morrison may have been influenced by Anais Nin and Blake… Ray’s momentarily crushed by the very idea, but of course we can assume he went on to realize everyone’s influenced by someone and there’s worse than Anais Nin and Blake. (Or Morrison and Kerouac.) Sounds like you’ve got an interesting kid. Oh, what a surprise.

96 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 20 November 2009 21:48:25 -0400
I’ve opened up a new topic (off to the right) — Sign of the Times. Part of the honesty in this book comes as a result of RR’s evocation of the era, so thought it might be fun to make a list of things and what they evoke for us. I started with 8 tracks.

92 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 20 November 2009 10:27:20 -0400
It happens occasionally; we think it could be Kerouac trying to get through. By the way, we’ve started a new thread dedicated entirely to: Not My Thing and Here’s Why. (under Topics for Discussion, to the right —>) Can’t wait to hear some Here’s Whys!. (I realize I can’t be an official member of the Here’s Why club… still, I did submit one small offering.) If anyone has a suggestion for a specific topic they’d like to discuss, let me know. I’ll be opening a new heading later today…

89 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 19 November 2009 15:12:49 -0400
Well, let’s see. I guess it’s the content, but I’m not offended or worried about it. I just don’t relate to it. I keep thinking – how can you people afford to be on the road with no responsibilities? I find the characters passionless. I don’t particularly “like” any of the characters in Kerouac’s or Robinson’s books, and I have to like or relate to someone to keep me interested. Again, theirs are voices that don’t resonate with me. I can, however, recognize the brilliance of the writing.

88 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 19 November 2009 11:24:54 -0400
Jessica… Don’t put pressure on yourself. Read a few pages a day, or more, and pop in when you can. I was just saying in my message to Dorothea, that we’re about to include another component to the discussion, i.e. posts under different topic headings that you can then look over and choose which you want to comment on. Or you can suggest a whole new thread. That way everyone doesn’t feel they have to comment on The Big Picture each time. Which can get clunky. So. As for where you should be by Saturday. The idea was about 20 pages a day — we’re discussing the chunks as we go — but that’s just a guideline for anyone who wants a guideline. If you’d rather read at your own pace, then do! Thoughts from page 2 are as welcome as from page 102. And digressions are always welcome. By the way, this is all an experiment, and we, the inaugural book clubees, are all part of it. Our (collective, diverse and possibly ever-changing)comments, ideas and suggestions to improve/change things, are what will make the club evolve. So PLEASE, never never hesitate to say what’s working for you and what’s not. ttfn,

87 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 19 November 2009 11:01:39 -0400
A variety of thoughts, opinions, impressions, tastes… it’s not only good, it’s essential. And thoroughly wonderful. Dorothea, I’m thrilled that your take on WHL is different than mine! My intention for the book club was to offer books that we might not read on our own, to step outside our comfort zones and try something new. And maybe hate it. And maybe love it. But most importantly, to maybe learn something from each other in the process of discussing, not only the book, but the feelings it inspires…the hate/love of it. Maybe it’s just me, but as a writer I want to know why someone dislikes something I write, as much as why they like it. As a reader, I find the same process interesting. I can’t imagine being part of a group where everyone ONLY ever agrees on everything. As Sue said, it’s not a love-in. Thank god. (I’ve never been to one but the very idea has always given me the creeps…) Far from being annoyed, I’m tempted to send you a virtual fruit basket to thank you for your honesty, and for opening the discussion in all directions. We’re going to re-structure the discussion element to include posts on various subjects. Why I’m Not Nuts For This Book or Aspects of It, might be a good place to start. So… would you like Bosc or Bartlett pears??

86 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 19 November 2009 09:57:34 -0400
Hey Dorothea, Why would we be mad? This isn’t a love-in! Obviously there are voices who so far have not weighed in on this page, and you modelling what it looks like to say “This isn’t working for me” is great. Maybe a discussion of what it is that’s not working would be interesting. Is it the voice? The content & subject matter? Is one of the two voices more problematic than the other? I have my problems with the content. I read about Kerouac’s determined self-annihilation and I find myself feeling depressed. And also, I read about the young Ray’s idealization of Morrison and JK and I get anxious – Cameron also admires Morrison and has read Kerouac – I worry about him thinking that kind of life is “cool”. So the content makes me anxious and uncomfortable (especially as a mom). But I have to say the writing and the voices (both of them) blow me away

85 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 19 November 2009 08:50:24 -0400
Gang, I’m trying. Really. I read three or four pages of Ray’s book and I find that’s enough at one time. It’s not that I’m offended or anything – just bored. I found Kerouac’s book had the same effect on me – same stuff, different page. Don’t be angry with me – I acknowledge Robertson’s genius as a writer. I understand why so many of you are gung-ho on the book. It’s just not a voice that speaks to me. Does that make sense?

84 Jessica
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 19 November 2009 08:22:46 -0400
I’ve fallen behind…hope to catch up on the weekend. What page should I be at by Saturday?
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 18 November 2009 18:55:40 -0400
Just read that chapter again, starting on p.68…and I realize I’m still not sure of the ‘that’ referred to in the first sentence (I assume it’s his usual quest, the Beat quest, the idea of harmony, of living in a way that makes sense); but is this statement coming out of the blue (to Joe as well as to the reader)? Or have I missed something? Also, when Joe finally speaks, he says: Pascal. I’m definitely missing something here. I do love, though, his own wild ride, beginning with blasting society’s endless desire to keep moving, to find diversions from reality, then, thinking about his brother’s death, which also feels out of the blue — so I’m wondering if it’s connected to the ‘that’ — maybe he’s been thinking about compassion all along, without having named it, even to himself, and then when he does, when it all crystalizes in his mind, when he knows the specifics of what he’s talking about, he says: “Can’t this thing go any faster?”) Yikes. Of course I could be right out to lunch on this!

82 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 18 November 2009 13:04:53 -0400
Carin, when you talk about how Ray uses the quote from the previous chapter to set up the next chapter – I’m starting to see how he does this most of the time. But it’s usually very subtle. One that is NOT so subtle is at the end of the chapter that begins with the quote you’ve cited before: “All philosophy is a footnote to a jelly-filled donut.” p. 63 (which, incidentally comes after Jack’s motel musing on Buddhism and death and how to be AND not to be is really the only question). And then we move into the intensity of the front seat of the car and the jelly error and the young Ray’s regretful musing on “If” at the end of the chapter. And then at the beginning of the next chapter (Jack’s this time) he begins the second paragraph with a hard emphasis on the word “If”. (And then he follows it up with a childhood scene of Jack in his parent’s car). I could read the whole thing again just paying attention to his stitching, which is masterful.

81 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 18 November 2009 12:03:09 -0400
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” This line (p.22) keeps bouncing around my head and moreso with James’ comments about the Russia/Canada scene (beautiful, I agree, the image of him standing at attention while he sang the anthem in the bathroom). Again, he is SO earnest. I like how RR has used Johnson’s quote to set up the hockey chapter and that love-in of shared beer and backslapping; was that a kind of hypocrisy disguised as patriotism? Or did patriotism truly erase any
class lines for even a fleeting moment; is that the power of it? And, if so, what good is a fleeting moment except to feel good, and confuse everyone, for a fleeting moment… He sets up a major theme of the book with the patriotism line, I think. So much of it is about feeling good for mere moments, things that aren’t lasting: school heroes, quick teenage gropes, the numbing effects of drugs and alcohol, the illusion of fame. I find myself considering how we live our lives (some more than others) in search of fleeting moments that feel good vs living our lives… Still thinking. More to come re the next chunk.

80 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 17 November 2009 15:15:20 -0400
I’ve got 40 pages to write about today – I’ve kept to my commitment to read 20 per day, but I didn’t have time to write yesterday. So as I read through it this second time I am struck by how different the experience is. The first time I was enjoying the story and galloped through. The second time I am really sinking into it and paying a lot more attention. A number of themes are becoming apparent to me in these 40 pages and they weave through both stories. 1) class 2) culture, particularly French Canadian vs. English (this intersects with class as well – particularly with Ray and his two sets of grandparents) 3) alcohol and it’s effects (class intesects here too) 4) male friendship, particularly Joe/Jack and Ray/James 5) and finally, a kind of anti-intellectualism that also intersects with class So, 1) Class. There are so many instances of this. The mention that both the men on the floor and the supervisors drank together out of the same case of beer after the Canada win in the hockey game implying that this was something really unusual. Ray visiting the Franklin’s house. The rich kids at school and how they dressed different so they’d recognize each other and how they came back from holidays with their “buttery Bermuda tans”. The line I love best from this is how the Franklin’s house is really not all that different “just crammed full of better brand name versions of all of the same crap that we had.” (p. 45) Alcohol intersects here – and irony – we’ve been treated to all of these horror scenes of the very drunk Kerouac already, and now we have Dr. Franklin bopping through his house, very preppy, and getting more looped by the minute. Ray’s dad’s comment when he picks him up: “You look at Dr. Franklin. He used his head, he used his brains. Now look at him.” Once again, just the same as Jack’s alcoholism, just better surroundings and probably a better brand of something to sip on. 2) culture. There is Jack’s brand of French Canadian – the ancestral baron Alexandre – his oft repeated story. And Ray’s French Canadian grandparents with their own history of poverty, domestic disturbance and alcohol abuse. I LOVED the scene with Ray opening his French GI Joe, and how Joe always ends up the Foreigner, under heavily armed guard. Definitely to be different is to be not-as-good-as. And yet there is Ray’s drive to be different like Jim Morrison, different like Jack K. 3) Alcohol – I’ve already alluded to some of it. There are all the many bar scenes with Jack. The references to the horror show of Ray’s mom’s childhood. The best lines about this whole issue, for me, are: “But what comes first, the chicken or the alcoholic? Jack always drank, no he really, really drank. Before, it was because of blah blah blah; now, it was because of et cetera et cetera. Give a junkie junk and he’ll give you a reason. Chemistry will find a way.” (p. 41). 4) Male friendships. The first page in these 40 is the end of our introduction to Joe, who for me is one of the most intriguing characters in the book. What is it that holds his loyalty so steadily to Jack? It’s echoed by Ray’s choosing CCI just because James is going there. 5) Anti-intellectualism. Ditto the line above regarding CCI. There’s all kinds of small, dropped allusions to it. The “celebrities” of the high school being hockey stars. The place of the two bookstores in Chatham. Best of all the speech of the Viking marketing rep about why Jack Kerouac’s ON THE ROAD should be picked up. All spin. Structurally, I love the delicate way Robertson picks up the themes, runs them through 2 or three chapters and then drops them and picks up something else. But in the meantime, he’s stitched the two stories together. Looking forward to the next 20 pages.

79 James
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 17 November 2009 14:34:27 -0400
I was choked up by the time I finished reading page 23 to 26, that whole experience of the Canada-Russia series. The boy and his dad in such an intimate place as the bathroom, the claustrophobia of the small space, the standing tall and singing the national anthem, the BEING something bigger than we are, that sense of unspoken pride and heartache all in one. Sure we’re just a little nation, sure we work in the steel mill, sure we only get dad to ourselves when he’s cleaning up in the bathtub, but we won, he says, we won, eyes closed saying nothing. Supervisors and workers sharing beer from the same case, men shaking hands, women hugging, all of us a part of the victory just as surely as all of us would have been isolated by the loss. Nobody could win the nuclear holocaust against the big Russian Bear, but Canada, each and every one of us, we won. The United States had just lost the Vietnam War. We forget the horror of the cold war we lived in. We remember the mistreatment of our hockey players by the Communists regime. We remember the crooked officiating and attempts to cow us into losing heart. We remember the criticism of the press when Canada was getting beaten handily in the early games. Then young Phil Esposito’s sad eyes in that press conference saying we’re doing the best we can. We need your support. The whole country was embarrassed. The whole country believed him and jumped on board, not at the top when they were magnificent, but at the bottom when we had so little hope of winning. At the bottom, all of us in it together, no matter what. We remember the heat of that magnificent victory even as we skated together on the cold hard surface of that hostile foreign ice and we found a way. We won. There never was another event like it afterwards, probably never will be again. Canada’s filled up with people who weren’t here that day, know nothing about us or hockey. “The author of On the Road didn’t drive.” LOL p.29. “He forgot to say his rosary so I stabbed him in the heart with my Smith-Corona.” Like the way the Catholic guilt motive sneaks in every so often. Liked the segue from page 33 (Ray picking a high school) to page 34 (Jack deciding where to go to university) Page 37 – how creepy is that reading about Jim Morrison dying in the bathtub in Paris in 1971 right after the scene of Ray and his dad in the bathtub? Anyone know who else famous died in a bathtub in Paris? “Never underestimate people who have paper clips for souls.”

78 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 16 November 2009 10:34:35 -0400
Hey Peter, James, and Ingrid…great to see you here. Just logging in my “favourite bit” from the next 20. (Okay, two favourite bits.) One from a Ray chapter, (p.30-31) where he’s talking about the
‘celebrities of the hallways’ the All Star hockey players who play in Memorial Arena, which he describes as having been built in the 40’s in honour of fallen veterans. Then…”Northside Arena, where the house league played, was built in the early 70’s and was called what it was because it was built on the city’s north side.” Love that deadpan delivery. And a Jack one: The scene (p.36) where he’s at the fancy restaurant trying to cut the string off his Cornish hen with a butter knife. The waiter tactfully suggests the ‘other’ knife might be more useful… Jack just kept sawing away. “That’s all right, Mac,” he said. “I’ve got a pretty strong arm.” Gotta run. Will check back later.

Please note: this discussion starts at the bottom and reads up.

For the second half, click HERE.

77 James
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 23:16:29 -0400
Reading this book is deja vu on both counts.
When I heard “Light My Fire” the first time it had only been on the radio a few days. After that I wanted to BE Jim Morrison and did my damndest to emulate him for 4 or 5 years. The gang of close friends (misfits) I hung out with (all from Barrie Central Collegiate) became the disciples of Jack Kerouac (whom none of us had ever heard of) via Jim Morrison (whose crazed anti-social lyrics and behaviours and damned good looks where all we needed to walk away from the terror/helplessness we saw all around us as the cold war collapsed into the skulking closeness of the Vietnam conflict.)
We buzzed on Jimi Hendrix and the rest of those Rock and roll Beat poet emulators, drank and drugged our way in, through and out the other side of the antisocial movement, hitching all over, meeting, greeting, leaving girls, towns, concerts, protest rallies. Then we lost one pal to overdose, then another beat half to death and crippled by soldiers (on leave) for having long hair and a big mouth; then another t-boned on a motorcycle driving drunk. That was enough for me. It was 1979 and I found myself alone and the last of the miscreant crew of the graduating class of 1969. Got married, had kids (ie. got back on the ‘right track”, disappeared into corporate Canada and lived my distorted version of the good life as long as I could.
SO this books takes me back there BIG TIME. Memories that aren’t mine but smell like they could be mine. I love Robertson’s long rambling sentences to denote the journey, lists of places, a lifetime summed up in where he had been and back (all in one paragraph). I particularly liked the way the book starts on the streetcar tracks, and later the role of the bicycle and buses in Ray’s first section. Being raised Catholic I hear him when he says “I got to take the slow way out” and “Suicide is a sin.”
I liked the description of the cool guys walking around with no jackets smoking cigarettes in the middle of winter. I saw a group of boys last winter in Ajax pulling the same tough stunt. Some things don’t change much. “… up and down its tired tar arteries listening for its fluttering, not-yet-flatlining heart:” Love the image of America and the fate of both the USA and Kerouac himself clearly outlined in one long “T” alliteration.
The friends getting Jack to sign napkins in case they might be worth something someday. How capitalistic our society really is. Page 16 and 17 – Dad and mom training Ray how to adopt a liquid consumption habit that will one day shift from sugar to carbs/alcohol. So subtle and so obvious.
“So he wouldn’t have to go to sleep and therefore wake up to himself again.” What’s eating this guy up? Now that we know how he dies, does her ever face up to it? Will he find anything back where he came from, ever go home again?
Will young Ray walk down the same road to ruin I almost did, my friends certainly did, and Kerouac legitimized?
I can’t wait to keep reading! But there’s a part of me that would rather not.

76 Peter
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 21:53:28 -0400
Hi Everyone-I have started reading What Happened Later and am enjoying it very much. Jim Morrison and the Doors brings back memories too. Wonderful prose and images so far…got to get back to the book.

75 Ingrid
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 13:07:06 -0400
Morning, all. Can’t say for sure if time will allow me to re-read the entire book, but the latest posts have peaked my interest again. Jessica’s and Ruth’s fresh impressions show once again just how personal, intimate, and unique each reader’s experience with the writing becomes. And Sue, you’ve also made me want to taste those first 20 pages again! It’s often so different the second time around, where you pick up nuances you didn’t notice before, or something new comes into focus that blurred past you the first time round…because the first time you were bent on figuring out What’s Happening. Sue’s right; the opening scene IS both hilarious and tragic. It marks the beginning of Jack’s last trek, but also nutshells Jack’s ‘fall’ from himself, even while his myth grows without him (Frankenstein and his monster, almost?) There he is, literally on his back, on the road; prone across the tracks (like a trussed hero, or a passed-out tramp, or a kid playing chicken), till a “streetcar or an automobile arrived”; as if the machine of his myth has used up and discarded him, and all he’s good for now is to let death clinch the immortality deal. The language nails it all so easily and quickly, yet with so many layers on tap–”he was finally free of the wheel of the quivering meat conception and
safe in heaven dead.” Love that beat, that end-rhythm-and-rhyme. A moment of pause. Then we’re back to the raucous present: “Actually, Fuck off, I’m not getting up, is what he said.” Fun stuff. Okay, it’s time to step back into those first 20 pages!

74 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 13:02:07 -0400
Sue — I agree, it’s a deeper read the second time through. That whole opening, after having become familiar with Kerouac in the first reading, takes on a whole new perspective. It put me off the first time, insofar as finding him a little disgusting. Not so, this time. Not at all. It’s the kind of book that can be read again and again and always another layer discovered. Love the Jim Morrison line too!

73 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 12:57:12 -0400
That’s “dulcet” tones… though I’m sure your dulcent ones would be equally delightful.

72 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 12:55:49 -0400
Delighted to see your dulcent tones on the page, Ruth… Yes, the language is gorgeous. My copy of the book is heavily lined and highlighted! Also love how he brings to life, in every sense, this rather ordinary little world in which he lives; this basic childhood where nothing exceptional happens, yet it draws us in through its sheer ‘truth’. My favourite bit in this first section is when he gets his wisdom teeth out and they’re in Lewis’ Variety and he finds the Morrison book. His dad doesn’t understand why he’d want a book when he could have two magazines for the same price. The image of him standing there with his crusty blood soaked Kleenex (you can almost feel that Kleenex in your own hand), his frozen mouth, looking up at no-nonsense dad and repeating the price when asked: “Only four ninety five.” So earnest is he. A tiny, simple scene, but conveys so much.

71 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 12:35:25 -0400
Jessica! Great to see you here. You will LOVE this book (and maybe your students would also?). I think feeling a little lost at first is exactly right; the book is structured in a way that reflects the confusion of both characters — young Ray, trying so hard to leave his small town family for something “real” — and burnt out Kerouac desperately going the other way, back to find his ancestral roots and what he hopes might be a bit of sanity. I love how the thing that propels each of them is the same: the book, “On the Road”. Ray wants to find it so he can start living. Jack wants to get away from it (and his pseudo fame) so he can stop dying. As you read on you’ll get into the rhythm (and eventually the storylines converge). As an experiment I tried reading all the Ray chapters separately, then all the Jack ones. No good. I immediatley missed the push and pull and connection of the narratives. So you have an excellent eye! And no, you don’t need to have read On The Road to ‘get’ this. (So said the author himself; in fact he said he wasn’t even that wild about On The Road. Among Kerouac followers, most will say that his other books are better; it’s that whole fame thing… Kerouac ‘became’ On The Road because the ‘publishing machine’ made it so, and all his other work was more or less overlooked. Who even knows one title other than On The Road? I didn’t. This is a lot of what Kerouac is raging against in What Happened Later. There are some wonderful scenes ahead!) So glad you’ve joined us!

70 Jessica
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 09:15:19 -0400
Hello fellow readers, I started the book last night. I love the way Robertson catches me off guard with his sentence structure and word order. The rhythm of the novel is unique. I had trouble understanding how/why the two stories were weaving together. I wonder if it’s because I haven’t read Kerouac. Or if it’s because I was tired when I started reading. I had trouble determining where I was and who was with me…luckily, the craft of the writing carried me onward. Ruth’s post really cleared things up for me. Thanks for your enthusiasm Carin. This will be a fun project. I’ve always wanted to be part of a book club. I just hope I can keep up with reading. I’m literally on page 20, lol. It was a natural place to pause for me. Great way to structure it. Cheers!

69 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 15 November 2009 09:14:49 -0400
Okay, so this is my second time through now – it reminds me of dessert buffet when you’ve decided to go crazy and have seconds. The first time you just eat what’s on your plate and then you go back for that second piece of pumpkin trifle and you eat it one very slow bite at a time, REALLY savouring it this time. SO – the first 20 pages on this second time through – I really paid attention to the way it opened this time. That scene with Jack lying on the streetcar tracks “There’s Jack Kerouac, back on the road again.” It sets the tone for the whole novel. Funny. Tragic. He IS going to be back on the road again in this book – one last time. But also, that first short chapter really lets us see how far down the road he already is. And then in the second of Jack’s chapters where we see his inglorious end – we’re drawn forward by the question – what happened? What happened later? – for this to have ended this way. It’s a counter intuitive opening for Jack, but I think it works. And as for the young Ray – I think my FAVOURITE line of many in these first few chapters is when he says, “Jim Morrison made being an outsider seem like the only honourable way of fitting in.” I snorted out loud. I love the introduction to the young Ray in these first couple of chapters – teetering on the edge of adulthood. And then the glimpse of him much younger in that – as Ruth said – very familiar to me world of 1960’s suburbia.

68 Ruth
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 14 November 2009 19:14:02 -0400
I know I am ahead of the ‘rules’ but it’s like this. I’m not home for much of tomorrow. I started to read the book and then I had trouble stopping — at page 31 now. And I’ll probably read more later tonight. The back and forth narration is rather cool. I am intrigued by the “idea” of travelling alongside Kerouac and ‘travelling’ with ‘Ray’. And such a fresh take on language, eh? “nasty frosty” and “freezing breeze” seem fresh to me. And “Nowhere to go but where everybody goes” is so inspired because this is Kerouac, this icon of the Beats, this guy who, by the end of his life, was more of a representation of an idea than he was an inspiration of an idea. A brilliant flash that dulls to alcoholic cloudbursts of what he used to be. I want to have been there, watching and listening to him while not wanting to have been there at all. And this kid. My gosh, this kid ‘Ray’ who is fictional but has the author’s name and…history?…now that’s not necessarily a new approach but there is something delicious about how this kid’s life is being constructed for us. His parents are, like many of our memories of our childhoods, images and half-constructed scenes. The steam rising from the tub. Red lipstick kisses on cigarette butts. Unfinished conversations. I’m liking this trip, thus far, very much. Can’t promise 20 pages daily and comments. But can promise I’ll have this read before Ray arrives in December. Thanks Carin for your unerring and persistent championing.

67 Ruth Walker
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 14 November 2009 18:49:55 -0400
Okay. Am reading “What Happened Later” and I’ve gone past page 20. Carin, you are so right. This is a fascinating (so far) and exciting ride.

64 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:14:47 -0400
Still reading RR’s “Mental Hygiene”. Essentially book reviews,re-written as frank and provocative essays on the state of CanLit or, as Robertson likes to say: McCanLit. Not a dull page so far. It’s the kind of book that makes you want to reference other books to see whether you agree with him. For example, some reference he made about use of the first person present and how that can sometimes keep too much (only) ‘on the surface’ made me wonder about “What Happened Later”; seemed to me he used present tense… and he does. And doesn’t. He might open a chapter with a statement of facts: “You won’t find the word ‘religion’ in the bible,” etc.,(p.189) which represents the character’s thoughts, then he moves back into the (in this case, third person) past tense narrative. But that dollop of present is just enough to keep things feeling ultra-immediate and I’m pulled into his head by thoughts that are, in fact, happening in real time.

63 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 12 November 2009 08:49:43 -0400
Just started reading another RR book, “Mental Hygiene”. Loving it already. The essays are conversational in tone so it’s like sitting around over a glass of wine sharing honest to god thoughts, without any BS, on books and writing, specifically writing in Canada. From “Mental Hygiene”, by Ray Robertson. “Gore Vidal define commercialism as doing well something you know you shouldn’t be doing. And what a successful commercial novel does well is put language, theme and even, to a degree, characterization on the back burner while allowing plot to happily boil away on the front. There’s good beach-reading and there’s not-so-good beach-reading, and what usually defines the former is that the reader cares about what’s going to happen next.”

60 James
76.70.171.14
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 8 November 2009 20:52:30 -0400
Thanks Carin! I’m game to start on Sunday the 15th. Anyone can join in. How about this: It’s 20 pages a day and everyone who wants to join the process is invited to make at least one comment about the 20 pages they read each day here on the website. There are 327 pages = 16 days/comments. If others want to type something in response to the posts, fine; if not, still fine. But if everyone posts at least one point each day we can expect some interaction I would think? Maybe we could announce it by email this week and again at the breakfast so people who haven’t bought the book yet could get one at the breakfast? Does this sound workable?

59 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 8 November 2009 17:54:45 -0400
That would work for me too! I’ve read it through once already, but now I need to read it again to comment on it. 20 pages a day would work really well with my hectic sched.

58 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 8 November 2009 09:49:39 -0400
Hi James, Absolutely! I think we should do whatever works best for everyone. This is all a huge experiment, so I vote we try your approach. Let’s think of how best to do that. Anyone else game?

57 James
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 7 November 2009 01:24:19 -0400
I need to have my hand held on this book club. I’ve never belonged to one and don’t know how it’s supposed to work. I’m quite busy but could squeeze in 30 to 45 minutes a day. Would it be possible to assign a certain page spread (i.e. page 1 to 20, one day, 21 to 40 the next day etc) and then ask everyone to comment on those pages each day? Maybe there could be a group of us all start the same day? I’d love to comment on the whole book, but it’s long, I have started it twice and I need motivation. I hope this isn’t too mewly of me, but maybe there are others who could use a boost and we could all read along on the same day at the same pace. maybe start the day after the wcdr breakfast? Is this ever done?

52 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 6 November 2009 13:54:24 -0400
A discussion began here about the Ted Barris event the other night in Whitby – this has been moved to the Events coverage page. Click that category in the box to the right, connect through the Events tab at the top of the page, or paste this URL into your address bar: http://readingaswriters.ca/readingaswriters/?p=518 And add your voice!

49 Ingrid
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 4 November 2009 15:41:05 -0400
Go for it, Carin! Compare those fruits! They’re not so different. You’re right – no purple here. RR comes at things from an earthier place. While there’s a hell of a lot of thinking and wondering going on, and also a lot of WONDER AT (ah, that BEATific thing), it’s always grounded. And if Ray wasn’t grinning at least a few times during the writing of this book, I’d be surprised. I mean, there’s R kissing his own naked shoulder by mistake in the make-out scene – “But that was alright. That felt good too.” Brings to mind that quote originally about Chaplin (I think it was): “makes you laugh and breaks your heart at the same time.” Exactly. Same with the doughnut scene and others. Titles are key. Literally, it seems to me. They are the reader’s entry into a poem or story. (By the way, I’m ignoring the impact of book covers here. No offense intended toward those who provide cover art, but these days a book’s ‘face’ seems to stem more from a downright zealous demographic targetting – gotta hook the eye of that potential buyer! – than it does from a desire to capture mood and respect the work. And don’t get me started on ubiquitous stock images and copycat covers. …Uh oh…now I’m backing away from the soapbox, I swear…) Anyway, a title is an opportunity that shouldn’t be overlooked or under-utilized. “What Happened Later” offers up all sorts of potential questions, meanings, and avenues for contemplation. On the face of it, it’s a simple invitation – to maybe find an answer. What comes first when I write? Ooo, big can of worms just cracked open. (Hello, my name is Ingrid. I am a title junkie.) Well, depends. Sometimes it’s the title. More often than not I have a working title riding shotgun, helping to navigate for awhile. But the final title eventually comes out of the work itself, as it takes over the driving. It’s a mostly fun process to find ‘la titre correct’…if you’re a title junkie, that is.

48 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 3 November 2009 19:18:55 -0400
Ha! Of course. Isn’t that perfect? (What else COULD you do??) I have the sense there was a deep pleasure in writing this (‘deep’ pleasure may be overstating the process!). I say that becasue the kind of truth that comes across here is (all too) rare in fiction — a place writers often only hope to get to. It’s easier, I think, to write the purple stuff that, when you read it you get the feeling it’s screaming at you to notice how agonizing every over-written syllabel was to get down. While in WHL you forget, sometimes, that you’re reading,so swept away in these worlds are we… As a writer, that’s where I want my reader to be… swept away. About the title… I love what you said about the many ‘what happened later’ moments; it makes me wonder about the importance of titles. This is a good one, yes? Appropriate on a number of levels. So when you write, what generally comes first, the title or the work? (I once asked an artist this question; he did abstract work, and his answer was: “I let my wife name the pieces after I do them.” (I was very disappointed as I wanted to ‘find’ the title in every painting.) Okay, I’m comparing two different fruits here, still…

47 Ingrid
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 3 November 2009 14:11:51 -0400
Carin, I did see those posts re CanLit and OTR. And Ray sure does work a scene well–whittles it down to essential bones. I finished WHL last night. Had to laugh during the scene in which Jack pulls out his notebook and the tangerine falls on his head. “‘Orlando Blues’, that’s what he’d call it. Of course he’d write a poem about it. When a fucking tangerine falls on your head, what other options do you really think you have?” Ah, that’s it, isn’t it? I wish now that I’d tabbed a number of places, like the doughnut scene, etc. We can all relate those “Coulda had a V8″ moments, those seemingly insignificant “what happened next”s that turn the characters left instead of right, and slowly build on each other, despite what Ray the teenager might think.

46 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 1 November 2009 18:15:44 -0400
Hi Ingrid…great to see you here. Love that image of the ‘first tumbler of a lock clicking into place’. Yes. That’s such a fabulous moment. You can so easily imagine the concentration on his face as he repeats the name. A small conquest but a sign (to him) that he WILL succeed. By the way, according to Ray’s own comments, no need to have read On the Road. I haven’t, so can’t compare the voice(s). And I’m glad. I wouldn’t want to be distracted from THIS Kerouac. I’ve been reading a lot of the mewling recently about CanLit in general, all the ‘writing to the awards’ style that’s sucking the life out of creativity. Have you read Ray’s piece on the subject? (Scroll down to near the bottom of the Home page.) Anyway, I’m thrilled to have discovered his work. Am currently mulling over his use of setting; love the way he works a scene; we see exactly what the character sees (needs to see). And only that. Such focus. The doughnut chapter(in the car) is brilliant, I think.

45 Ingrid
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 1 November 2009 14:43:21 -0400
Kevin and Carin, I’m with you. The moment the boy repeats the pronunciation of “Kerouac” is like the first tumbler of a lock clicking into place, isn’t it? What always strikes me about RR’s writing is his ability to pin you to the moment so simply – there’s no self-indulgent florid prose, the kind that loses you in its own lint-chasing. Instead, you get a hit of rye, straight up.

44 Ingrid
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 1 November 2009 13:56:18 -0400
I’ll see if I can continue my thought… The beat poets are familiar, but I’ve no ‘baggage’ to check or refer to where OTR is concerned (other than an awareness of the myth). Does RR, in fact, conjure JK’s writing voice, or give him a modified one? (Jack literally seems to be all over the map. ha.) Either way, it’s funky to see what’s happening between the ‘chapters’, how each one resonates in the next.

41 Ingrid
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Fri, 30 October 2009 11:44:06 -0400
Hello all! I’ve still got a cantankerous messenger here, and can’t seem to solve the problem entirely. Anyway… It’s interesting to see what has come up so far in the discussion. Since I only started to read WHL two days ago (apologies to Ray; I’m behind the moon) and am still absorbing what’s already been posted here, my input will be limited for a bit.

33 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 24 October 2009 14:10:52 -0400
Can’t think of a better shape for this story. There’s an almost physical sense of movement with each chapter: from the jaded ’star’ who’s had anything but a normal life, desperate to get away from society’s pathetic idea of fame, hoping to find a sense of self and a place where he can just ‘be’.(I’m not sure if the problem for him was that it was too late, or just impossible…) And then, to Ray, living in this tiny brilliantly simplistic, loving world. This mini philosopher, obsessed with finding the answers to life through Kerouac. Such delicious irony, that’s just there, nothing heavy handed about its presentation. I read each Kerouac chapter, knowing what happens to him, yet still fascinated, impressed with his clarity of thought despite the drugs (because of the drugs?), the simplicity of his complex nature, how Beat really meant, essentially, living joyfully, how it’s society that doesn’t get that (simplicity). Never will. In the chapter that begins (p.39) “Becoming an overnight success only took seven years” he lays it all on the line, his take of ‘fame’. It’s an amazing chapter, every sentence so tight and powerful and raw with emotion. And yet so crystal, crystal clear… (That’s the one that ends with fame feeling ‘like old newspapers blowing down Bleeker Street). Leaves me a little weak in the knees every time I read it. (THIS is the zone I strive to be in when I write! No, not weak-kneed, but crystal, crystal clear…) HOWEVER… despite my love for the Kerouac chapters, at the end of each one, I turn the page filled with concern for young Ray. How odd. Why worry about Ray over there in Chatham with its leather sleeved jackets and promise of climbing the Sears promotional ladder? Ah, but therein lies my answer. And I realize it’s HIS story, despite larger-than-life Jack. All that ordinary Ray stuff that makes up life, creates HIS own movement toward — not only On the Road — but the whole potential that IS his life, that On the Road represents to him. Telling either of these stories on their own would require more of each and that, I think, would dilute them horribly and render both less than they are.

32 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 22 October 2009 20:36:15 -0400
I find myself logging in here several times a day hoping there will have been more chat about the book. What a treasure trove today! I’m with Karen – fascinated with those two bisecting trajectories – the journey toward and the journey away. I had seen two others – the one star story rising and the other falling. I love what you said Carin – “hen I surface I actually find it odd and cooincidental that the same name appears on the book’s cover” – now THAT’s immersion in the story!

31 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 22 October 2009 18:34:53 -0400
Karen, So glad you enjoyed the book. I’m on my second read and loving it in a whole new way as I do the Ray section separately from the Jack section. Wouldn’t recommend this from a simply ‘for pleasure’ perspective because the juxtaposition of stories and voices adds enormously to the experience and I’m missing that back and forth. But of course I’m dissecting it, trying to work out how the author did what he did… I love that you mention the relationship with Ray and his dad. I think it’s so beautifully portrayed (though I didn’t the get the same ‘almost brotherly’ vibe you did; I’ll keep that in mind as I re-read). The dad strikes me as a salt of the earth type who sometimes finds the whole family thing a little overwhelming and who often puts the responsibility for having to do un-fun things on his wife, but that’s just very dad-like to me and one of the comic elements of the book (there’s actually a lot of humour in the dad/Ray scenes; I love how Ray repeats the price of the Jim Morrison book, for instance (p.11), as “Only four ninety-five.” I can just picture him with his sore mouth, desperate for the thing, angling his best approach, trying to remain calm. And then his dad bites.) I got that he was really proud of his dad, that whatever the rich guys flaunted never got onto Ray’s radar. If anything, it was his dad that thought his son might want some of that stuff. But then, on p. 45, after Ray relents and goes to Larry’s party (only to get out of helping his dad with the hedge) he says how Larry’s house was pretty much the same as his own except for being four or five times bigger and having an indoor pool, etc., essentially “…just crammed full of better brand name versions of all of the same crap that we had.” Also interesting that you point out the lack of a father figure in Kerouac’s life… It’s a rich rich read. As I said, I’m delighted you’re enjoying it. Looking forward to more of your comments! AND you’ve learned what a gravatar is!! (Off topic slightly: did you read my By the Way on the Home page,in which I explain why I referred to your Nino Ricci guess as being ‘close’…?)

30 Karen Cole
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 22 October 2009 17:25:52 -0400
Oh, now I know what a gravatar is. I was going to have to look it up! Folks, I’ve fallen behind reading this discussion because whenever I had free time, I was reading WHN.I finished it this aft. Carin and all, what a terrific book. I confess I didn’t know Ray Robertson’s work at all before, but he’s an amazing writer and I’ve got to read more. I felt his input was valuable too. I esp. like his pointing out the contrast between Jack’s going away from and Ray’s going to OTR. There were lots of other contrasts between those two characters as well, and the one that kept striking me was the total absence of a father in Jack’s life (maybe that was his problem) and Ray’s almost brotherly relationship with his. Ray’s mother is outside the male connection; Jack’s mother encircles him and if anything, his wife gets left on the sidelines. Joe is a great friend, incredibly long-suffering. Yes, I continued to get fed up with Jack, but I agree in retrospect that the squirm factor is important, and will make the book memorable, I think. Jack wants to change the course of American lit (maybe he did, but I didn’t notice it); Ray wants to be a philosopher and to be like his idols, JM and JK – oh yes, and to get to Toronto some day. So glad he did. When Jack gets where he wants to go, he doesn’t know what to do about it. Sorry, I’m rambling. Still sorting out my thoughts.

29 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Thu, 22 October 2009 11:30:52 -0400
A MESSAGE FROM RAY ROBERTSON…(part of his reply to my email introducing the group and the website): “There’s no reason to read Kerouac’s On The Road before What Happened Later. As a matter of fact, I’m not a big fan of OR (and remember, the character in WHL is obsessed with ‘getting’ OR, not the book itself, which he only reads after WHL is over).” I like the reminder here, that we note the distinction between the boy being obsessed by the book (which he cannot be, because he hasn’t yet read it) and the ‘getting’ of the book… Unlike the Kerouac chapters (Jack’s effort to move AWAY from the book), it’s the journey TO the book that becomes the boy’s ‘part of the movie’, the things he’s led to because of his SEARCH for the book. And ‘what happened later’ to him is, well, anyone’s guess. (And here’s where the clever use of Ray Robertson’s own name becomes important to me; while I know there’s a connection to RR the boy and RR the author…I’m so drawn into the fictional world of the boy that when I surface I actually find it odd and cooincidental that the same name appears on the book’s cover. It’s a subtle and slightly mind-bending bit of layering, reminds me a little of the old Black Magic chocolate box — the picture of a woman holding a box of Black Magic which has a picture of the woman holding a box of Black Magic which has a picture of…etc. I always used to try to imagine the first picture.) Uh oh. My mind’s bending again. And I should be working. More later. Much more.

28 Kevin Craig
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 20 October 2009 21:32:43 -0400
Sue- The voice is amazingly true to Kerouac’s voice. I think I’ve read all of Kerouac’s books. Take it from a Kerouac fan…I felt like I was getting some new Kerouac to read when I first hit Robertson’s Kerouac pages. It’s exquisite. And his alternate chapters show that he also has his own voice down. PS: That’s not me in my gravatar. That’s my Franny girl. (-;

24 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 20 October 2009 13:09:55 -0400
I think one of the things I found most striking about this book was the way that Ray adopted the voice of Jack Kerouac. Now, I’ve never read any of Kerouac – that’s about to be changed (and that’s due to reading this book) – but reading Robertson’s … I’m struggling for the word here… translation? transmutation? imitation? hypotheticalization? … of Kerouac’s voice made me want to read OTR for a couple of reasons. One – Kerouac said a number of things in the novel that made me want to understand why he was such an icon for a whole generation, and Two – I want to see how closely Robertson’s adopted Kerouac voice matches the real Kerouac voice. (I suspect quite closely). Kevin – I agree – I’m blown away by Carin’s idea of reading the sections in character together instead of interwoven. Cool! Carin – I loved that moment too where he talks about what literature is supposed to be. And what a cool idea from Anne Marie Macdonald!!! I don’t think I could sustain a whole novel like that, but I’m sure going to try that technique for a short story!!

23 Kevin Craig
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Tue, 20 October 2009 06:58:14 -0400
Wow…so much to talk about. I will probably forget a few of the things I wanted to respond to. (-; Dorothea- It has been an almost life long dream to get to that cemetary. (I will get there one day…and I will bring a notebook! Alison has been there a couple of times) Carin- I loved the part where Ray first heard the pronounciation. I’ve BEEN there…where you pick up an author name through reading a book…and one author leads to another and you search out that author, but you’re afraid to say their name out loud in case you mispronounce it—because you’ve never heard it out loud. I loved that part where he heard it pronounced, took it in, processed it for later. Nice touch. I love your idea of reading the sections separately. I think I’m going to try it. I like how sometimes it seems like the sections are far divided and then, bang, the Kerouac section wraps around the Ray section we just read. They seemed to get closer to each other as the book neared the finish line. Dorothea- Yes…there are glimpses of great writing in OTR that make me very jealous. Those are the bits that made me run for Tristessa, Satori in Paris, the amazing Pic, The Dharma Bums. I knew he was a great writer…I just wasn’t that into OTR as a story.

22 CARIN
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 19 October 2009 20:50:50 -0400
Speaking of the voice(s) and timeline/storyline switches…an amazing one I just came across tongiht: p.98, where one chapter ends with Ray hearing the name Kerouac pronounced for the first time. He repeats it in two separate sections in that short chapter. Powerful. THEN… next chapter begins with the Kerouac POV on life in two paragraphs. Holy bleep. And some pages/chapters later (p.115): “… this is what literature is supposed to sound like– one man simply telling another man the simple humiliations and agonies and always-too-late epiphanies that add up to his and everybody else’s life…” Okay, I don’t love the ‘another man’ stuff… but I’m completely addicted to the one two punch of this book. Just when I’m into Ray, there comes Jack. And vice versa. Sue, I’ve also been wondering about the naming of the Ray character… why do that? (Yet I can’t imagine him being named anything else.) More tomorrow.

21 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 19 October 2009 18:16:43 -0400
Yes, I agree. The contrast in voices is beautifully done. Each so true. I was tempted on this, my second reading, to read each storyline through on its own. I still might. I wonder how he wrote the original draft; I mean, did he sketch out the whole Ray story, then the whole Kerouac story, then fit
them together, making changes as necessary? (I’m keeping a list of questions to ask Robertson, by the way; feel free to add yours.) The whole idea of writing in layers intrigues me. I heard Anne Marie MacDonald once explain how she wrote Fall on Your Knees. She said she wrote all the dialogue first. Just characters speaking. Eventually adding clothes and scenery and other ‘details’. But then she’s a playwright and actor, so maybe that’s a more natural process for her. Interesting all the same, I thought.

20 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 19 October 2009 18:02:58 -0400
Dorothea! Don’t apologize for waxing beautifully on idyllic writing sites. I was happily whisked away to the Pere Lachaise Cemetiere (grateful it was a vicarious trip) and imagined sitting on a bench with a pen, and a sandwich…

19 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 19 October 2009 17:56:00 -0400
Karen, You deserve something (a medal seems too much, a pin maybe… a round of applause) for going ahead with What Happened Later despite your allergy (you thought) to all things Kerouac. I’m very impressed. How many people would have picked up the book after groaning?? Even if only in spirit. Hope things are looking up! (As the for drugging and drinking — exhausting as those passages can sometimes be, don’t you agree there’s real power there, via the truth in the writing? I was talking with someone recently about what I call the ’squirm factor’, that place in a story — that we’re reading OR writing — that makes us uncomfortable. There’s a tendency to stop reading/writing at that point and I believe that’s often (always) a mistake. Right under the squirm there’s very likely a goldmine of truth. That’s what I feel when reading WHL — it makes me squirm at times but it’s only because I’m facing something the writer has captured that is real. And real’s not always pretty. Having said all that, there’s being in the right mood for squirming too… Sometimes we want escape, not reality.)

18 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 19 October 2009 09:47:50 -0400
By the way, my last post was off topic. Sorry – back to reading OTR!

17 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 19 October 2009 09:47:06 -0400
By the way, Sue, the highlight of my Paris trip in 2003 was visiting Pere Lachaise Cemetiere and the graves of Jim Morrison, Chopin, Edith Piaf, Oscar Wilde adn Gertrude Stein. I’d love to go back there someday and spend a few days with pen and notebook, writing while sitting on a bench in that incredibly inspiring setting.

16 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Mon, 19 October 2009 08:49:46 -0400
I’m further into OTR now and at least I’m finding it interesting. I can understand why it’s developed a sort-of cult following. The voice is indicative of a slice of society at the time. There are moments of brilliance in the writing. Many times I think – OH, I wish I’d written that sentence. Anyways, I’m giving it a chance. I’ll read Ray’s book once I’ve finished OTR.

15 Kevin Craig
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 18 October 2009 22:04:47 -0400
I’m so glad you mentioned the way he handled timelines, Sue. I loved that about the book. I found myself excited to get back to the other voice…and then it would be a chronologically different time…but I never minded being dropped into a different time (whether earlier than the last chapter or later). Though it wasn’t always chronologically sound, I really didn’t mind at all. And the search for the book was great too. He seemed to be ‘becoming’ as he approached the book.

14 Sue
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 18 October 2009 14:26:11 -0400
Hey all, What a treat to get on here and find the discussion already in full swing. I read the book this week (WHL, not OTR) then my son bought me OTR for my birthday, so I’m going to have a go at it next – after I do a light re-read of What Happened Later. I find I need to do that – I can’t really talk intelligently about a book the first time I have a go at it. I read it once for the story – and like with movies, if it’s a well written book my suspension of disbelief is almost complete. I’m completely in it. And issues of craft are not even on the table. Then I have to read it again looking at what’s going on and how the author pulled that off. But – initial first impressions. I was impressed with the way the time lines were handled. Both stories seemed to me to be presented without a chronological order (I have to go back now and see if that impression is accurate or whether it left me with that impression because of flashbacks). It’s a mosaic – and it’s not till the book is finished that you see the shape of both stories. Reader response – Cameron is a big fan of Kerouac and Jim Morrison (when I took him to Paris a couple of summers ago we had to do a pilgrimage to Morrison’s grave). So I was watching the growth of the Robertson character with a personal interest. Speaking of which – what an interesting device – why call the young character Ray Robertson? Is it overtly autobiographical? Is it just too autobiographical to be dishonest to name the main character anything else? I think the one detail that really stayed with me that I want to go back and follow is the whole idea of the character hunting for a copy of “On the Road” and never being able to find it, but finding lots of other related things instead. And then finding the book is the very last line of the story. Which becomes weighted with huge significance. And the book is called “What Happened Later” and of course I’m very curious to know what happened later to the character Ray after he finally found and read the book, after we’ve closed the covers of this book. Anyway, I think I’m babbling. I’m going to go and re-read it to solidify my ideas and check back here in a couple of days. P.S. Carin – or anyone else – if you want help in getting a gravatar, let me know & I’ll walk you through it.

13 Karen Cole
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sun, 18 October 2009 12:30:22 -0400
I read OTR in recent years and felt a little sacrilegious (confession time) in not liking it very much. I got very tired of Jack’s drinking and drugging – found him a hard character to like. But it’s quick, and everyone refers to it, so felt it was a must. When I learned that our first book was related to it, at first I groaned in spirit. But I like this much better (though I haven’t read very far yet). Very funny and thought-provoking. I even like JK better now, esp. since realising we share dual citizenship!

12 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 17 October 2009 21:58:39 -0400
I suppose it’s like everything — if it fits, it works. It’s the contrived nature of ‘quirky’ references and so on (the ones that stand out for reasons you can’t quite put your finger on) that end up being questionable. At least that’s my best guess, because I agree with you that ‘time stamping’ (in context) only enhances a story. Now, of course, I’m going to lay awake all night, trying to think of examples/books where it doesn’t work… The thing that p*ssed you off… you mean Victoria Whatsername? I hadn’t read her and so went to the library to check out some of her books. Meh. And not only that, she has Acknowledgements…! ‘night all.

11 Kevin Craig
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 17 October 2009 21:38:42 -0400
Yes, Carin. I read the links you included up top. The one about the Giller judge p*ssed me off a bit. I’ve heard debates on the placement of time stamping details in novels. I honestly don’t understand why some would have a problem with them. I don’t think it’s limiting at all. I tend to think that they are actually helpful in the overall setting of the novel.

10 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 17 October 2009 21:32:12 -0400
Hi Kevin. I’m also reading it for the second time. And loving it. (And my birth year is not the same as Robertson’s — though not quite Kerouac’s either.) However, I agree, he’s nailed some truth about growing up (is it the time or the place or just some intangible ‘innocence’ he’s tapped into?) that’s recognizable to me also. I love the cultural references; Gilligan’s Island, etc. (I’ll think of others), that in themselves help place us inside his head. Is it limiting to do this? Some ages may not relate, but then, he’s clearly not writing to ‘an audience’ any more than Kerouac was. But then, I don’t think he’s too worried about who gets his stuff; he knows someone will(maybe not the Giller judges… did you read the blog post he wrote for The National Post; I’ve put a link at the beginning of this page).

9 Kevin Craig
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 17 October 2009 21:20:25 -0400
I concur. With Carin. Slam it shut. The Kerouac part of WHL is terrific. But not a lot about OTR at all. More about Kerouac, the man…

8 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 17 October 2009 21:15:46 -0400
Dorothea, I hadn’t read On The Road either and was tempted to read it before What Happened Later, but resisted. As it turns out I’m very glad I read the latter(WHL)unpredjudiced. The former isn’t required to ‘get it’. Not at all. It’s a much more universal story than anything directly related to OTR. My advice: slam it shut. Crack open What Happened Later. Then give us your ‘virginal’ opinion. She said with a smile…

7 Kevin Craig
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 17 October 2009 21:04:46 -0400
I’m loving the book. I have to confess that I already read it, though. (Dorothea…On the Road is my least favourite Kerouac. I love most of his books…but I’m not a huge fan of On the Road…I feel it loses him readers before they give his other books a chance sometimes.) When I first started to read What Happened Later I checked out the front of the book to find out when Robertson was born. I related SO much to the character…turns out we share the same birth year. I find it amazing how effortlessly the voice changes between the Kerouac story and the ‘Robertson’ story. I really love this book.

6 Dorothea Helms
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Sat, 17 October 2009 20:25:34 -0400
Well, I decided to read Kerouac’s book first. Started it yesterday. I’m only a few pages in, and I’m totally bored. I sure hope this picks up. I’m determined to get through it and THEN read Robertson’s book.

5 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 14 October 2009 20:10:28 -0400
BTW — The correct spelling for amphetemines is amphetamines. I’m famous for doing a spell check AFTER I send a message. Be warned.

4 carin
Guestbook #1 Submitted on Wed, 14 October 2009 20:05:13 -0400
I suddenly feel the need for a gravatar. What is this strange thing called technology that makes us want/need things we never knew existed??? (Until recently I thought ‘gravatar’ was what you took before crossing the English Channel) I’ve just come back from a deep woods adventure in BC, communing with deer and wild trout (well, actually I was eating the wild trout, not communing with, as they will confirm; actually, no, they can’t)(apologies to any veggies out there, but, um… yum). Anyhooo, I was in the woods eating freshly caught fish, making fires and sagebrush smudges (don’t ask), not showering, and wearing socks with my Birkenstocks (I know, I know. Even the deer were embarrassed to be seen with me) and, strangely, it seemed the perfect environment in which to be (re)reading “What Happened Later” (although I also read “On Chesil Beach” if you want the whole truth), yet neither storyline has anything to do with nature. So there I was, with a glass of delectable BC chardonnay, toasting my marshmallows and pondering Jack Kerouac’s (imagined) journey to Quebec, and Ray Roberston’s (possibly imagined) journey to “On the Road” (with a side of Chesil Beach) and wondering what it was all about, Alfie. And what connected them. Because something did. The common denominator, I realized after several marshmallows (and as already touched upon) was truth. Surely ‘truth’ is the beginning point, or some point we must reach (as writers) no matter the genre. We spend a lot of time making things up, embellishing, playing and concocting scenarios, all of which is important, but maybe not as important as getting out of our own clever way and letting the truth of what we/our characters/the story has to say… be said. And as easy as that sounds, I think it may be the most difficult aspect of writing. Amphetemines, anyone??

Clues

NEVER LET IT BE SAID YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE…

Hello fellow members!

Ever since we (so successfully!) determined what The Book Club Book isn’t, there’s been mounting anxiety over the possibility that THERE ARE NO BOOKS LEFT THAT IT MIGHT BE. Oh no!!

Fear not.

There is one author, one book, left unturned.

And four clues—in the form of tiny excerpts—of what that unturned book is.

Here is the first:

“…the stupid Florida always sun;…”

(And good glory, if you happen to figure out what it is, please keep it to yourself.

It’s supposed to be a secret, remember?)

Yours in cluelessness,
carin.

Clue Two:

“…Marie gets into a good-waitress groove…”

Clue Three:

STILL NEED MORE? Okay, how’s this…

“…an old girlfriend…asked him what it was like to be famous.
Like old newspapers blowing down Bleeker Street, he said.”

Clue Four:

“…I killed him myself last Thursday night. He forgot to say his rosary so I stabbed him in the heart with my Smith Corona.”

If you haven’t worked it out, bate your breath and prepare for the unveiling
at the breakfast meeting tomorrow (and directly after the meeting at www.readingaswriters.ca)

__________________________________

WHO IT WASN’T

(the contest where you only had to be wrong to be right)

CONTEST NOW CLOSED.

All guesses will be entered into a draw on October 10th.

GUESSES:

Our first response has already been received from (always ahead of every game) Ruth Walker, who guessed that our book club author was NOT Leonard Cohen. (Yay!! confetti, applause!!) While thrilled to be wrong, Ruth is disappointed that we (she) will not be chatting with the man in a famous blue raincoat over a nicely browned breakfast sausage on a snowy morning in December.

“Un autre temps, peut-etre…” she muttered from under a heavy layer of confetti.

A second entry comes from Anonymous, who guessed Conrad Black. Thank you, Anonymous. You are also correct. Or incorrect. Mr. Black is NOT our first book club author. (But I’m afraid we’ll have to withhold the applause as that one’s a bit obvious isn’t it…. please try to remember the authors must be CANADIAN.)

Jan Wristen submits that our author is NOT Robert Munsch. Well done. (However the only reason he’s not is that we couldn’t find a table big enough to hold all his books.)

Vicki Pinkerton (helllooooo out there, Vicki!!) has correctly guessed that it is NOT Anne Cameron and I for one would like to know why it isn’t. (maybe you can bring her back with you)

Kevin Craig has offered up the possibility that it is NOT Natalie Goldberg, which makes me wonder if Kevin was listening at the meeting when I said that the first author was, in fact, a MAN, or was Kevin just pretending to listen when in fact visions of Kenya were dancing in his head?? (Notice I didn’t have a go at Vicki because she’s travelling and perhaps was on a bumpy road when she read the instructions and missed the man part. So to speak.)

Whoa. Heather O’Connor, you daredevil…! Heather’s guess was Guy Gavriel Kay. Taking quite a chance there. But it’s okay. He’s NOT the one. Bravo!

Tina Collett has entered Tina Collett as the most likely author it ISN’T. And of course she’s right. (But it was close. It was between her and the guy we eventually got.)

Cynthia Englert votes that we are NOT featuring Michael Ignatieff. Absolutely right. (I mean, correct.)

.

Rich Helms is pretty confident it’s not Dan Brown. Well, Rich, let me tell you, it almost was Dan Brown. That honorarium tempted him something awful. He even begged a little when he heard breakfast was included. Sad. But I had to be firm. Danny boy, I said, you’re a Yankee and this book club’s for Canucks; see ya in the funny papers.

.

Karen Cole has selected Nino Ricci. Well done, Karen…it’s NOT Nino Ricci. But you’re getting warm. (And I can’t say why.)

A message to Ingrid Ruthig: “For a name unknown/ Whose fame unblown/ Sleeps in the hills/ For ever and aye…” (In other words, you’re absolutely right, it ain’t me, babe, but thanks for the resurrection; xox, Bliss)

.

Yay!! Roxanna Bennett’s got game! Rawi Hage will NOT be here in December. (Not unless he shows up as a guest, or a paying member. And rsvp’s before the 10th.)

Her Excellency, Myrna Marceline, aka Contest Queen, guessed Michael Ondaatje. An elegant answer. Exquisitely wrong.

.

Kenza Warbuton has brilliantly deduced that we will not be hosting Pierre Berton (this, despite the well known fact that he was a master at recycling himself…)

.

Two more entries for Robert Munsch—this time from Heather Whaley, and Raissa Chernushenko (who, by the way, I think has the best name of all our members). As for Munsch…I’m starting to think we should have tried harder to find a bigger book table….

.

Corinne Yurko-Baron wonders if it could possibly NOT be Ken Follett. Yeah, I think you’re safe there, Corinne, given that the criteria is a CANADIAN author, which I think I’ve mentioned once or twice. Britain has actually been a separate colony for some time now, or we have. Either way, isn’t Pillars of the Earth FABULOUS?? And wouldn’t it be great if Ken Follett WAS our author??!

Mona Blaker’s entry for who our author is NOT, is Chuck Norris. Hmmm. Can Chuck Norris even spell N-O-T??

.

Barb Belliveau’s guess is Dean Koontz. Good choice insofar as who it ISN’T. But also not Canadian. (Does anyone know any Canadian authors who it might not be???)

.

Sue Reynolds has submitted Robertson Davies. Now that’s the idea. Sure, he’s dead, but at least he’s CANADIAN. Are we getting how this works??

.

James Dewar. Also with the program, James has submitted another (albeit no longer with us) CANADIAN author. Thank you, James. Timothy Findley will definitely NOT be our December guest.

.
And on the theme of authors that are off their twig, kicked the bucket, have joined the bleedin’ choir invisible… and have ceased to be (in the words of Monty Python), Collette Yvonne gives us Stephen Leacock. (Does anyone know any living Canadian authors??)

Speaking of Stephens…a few people (whose names I won’t mention) have guessed our IS NOT author might be Stephen Harper. They have been disqualified.
.

Frank Young has been forced to go all the way back to Victorian England for his choice—Charles Dickens—given that all the recently deceased Canadian scribes have been covered. Excuse the choice of words. Well, Frank, logic has paid off. You’re right. Mr. D. will not be making this gig. (Homer anyone??)

Hey, Sherry Loeffler! Wouldn’t it be great if your entry (Ted Barris) was actually right (or, in this case, wrong) and he was the author coming in December?? You would no longer be in the running for a prize, but who cares, bells would go off, and sirens too, and a spontaneous parade would erupt around your house!!! (I don’t hear any of that stuff though, do you? That’s because it’s NOT Ted.) Well done!

.Ruth Walker has sent us Farley Mowat. Not actually the whole man, just the name. Which is plenty, thank you. (Ruth has also sent us Steven Heighton, again not the whole package, though she tried.) Alas, neither Mr. M., nor Mr. H. will be standing next to her in the buffet line. (But take heart, in this contest, that’s good news!)

Kathleen Martin has guessed that Alistair MacLeod will not be attending our December meeting. Bonnie Beldan-Thomson has guessed exactly the same thing. (Am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that BOTH Kathleen and Bonnie are so sure Alistair MacLeod will NOT be available in December… If Kathleen and Bonnie are also NOT at that meeting, I’m starting a rumour.)

Karen Cole has offered up two more names: Michael Redhill because (she hopes) he lives in France, and Kevin Craig because (she knows) he’ll be in Kenya. (What, you couldn’t think of anyone from the last century??).

The Writing Fairy, aka Dorothea Helms, entered Bulwer J. Lytton as her choice, then, suddenly and mysteriously and madder than a wet hen glistening in the light of an amorous harvest moon, she withdrew the name, stating with clichéd agitation, a delicate stamp of a perfectly pedicured size six, and wings bent horribly out of shape, “It’ll be a dark and stormy night before we have him as a presenter!”

.Erin Thomas has submitted the names Erin Walters and Ken Oppel. This leads me to wonder a couple of things:
1) who is Erin Walters? When I google the name I get a makeup artist named Bruce.
2) and what about Ken Oppel? Does she mean ERIN Oppel?? Or ERIC Oppel?
(Either way, Erin—if in fact that is your real name—none of these is even close. Congratulations!)

“Ideally a book would have no order to it, and the reader would have to discover his own.” (Mark Twain) Suggested by Kenza Wharbarton. Thanks Kenza. Fabulous right/wrong choice! (Just realized I’ve been spelling your name wrong; sorry…)

.

Heather Whaley and Thelma Davidson have both guessed Margaret Atwood, forcing me to return to the Alistair MacLeod theory—if all three of you are not at the December meeting, there will be talk.

.

Mary Wilton has entered one of our favourite past guests, Linwood Barclay. (Whatever happened to Linwood? Anyone heard? Is he still writing??)

.

Barbara Ponomareff has elevated things by suggesting Ronald Wright, a man possibly too busy penning clever words about important things to rub elbows with the likes of us. (We’ll never know, we didn’t ask him. But if we do, we hope he’ll say yes. For now, he’s a no. So congrats, Barbara!)

Victoria Plaskett has submitted Craig Kielburger. Now wouldn’t that be an interesting time? But no, we’re going to have a different kind of interesting time, Victoria. Very different. Thanks though.

.

Karen Cole (nice to hear from you again, Karen; where have you been all day?) has entered David Adams Richards. Can’t say I’m happy to say (not say?) it ISN’T him, but I’m thrilled to say Karen’s right. Again.

.

Brian Curry has guessed Alexander McCall Smith. Aww, isn’t that just precious?

.

Thanks to Ellen Curry for suggesting Wilbur Smith, who is neither a Canadian nor even a real person (based on what I read once about how he only ever writes one draft of his books and they just happen to come out perfect). So I guess he won’t be here, eh?

.

Kim Clark has offered up Paulo Coelho. Now there’s an interesting bird. Writes a book a year or something. Also possibly not real.

.

Barbara Hunt has submitted Robert Wiersema. Well, well, well. Fancy that choice. Barbara, do you mean who IS going to be our author? Because if you’re entering Robert Wiersema as who IS going to be our author, you’re absolutely, one hundred percent wrong. But you’re one hundred percent right about who it ISN’T.

Ingrid Ruthig, never eunoia-ing, has suggesting Christian Bok; and just for the heck of it, MG Vassanjii.

Shirley Neal has correctly deduced that Maeve Binchy, who has written four books since retiring a few years ago and who is also probably a figment of her own imagination, will therefore not be coming to our wee part of the world any time soon.

.

Deborah Elsmore has not been reading the other guesses. (I’m only guessing, however, based on her guess being Robert Munsch. Gee, Deborah, I guess you’re only the 19th person to guess that. And guess what? You’re wrong. Congratulations.

.

I would like to shake Heather Tucker’s hand for suggesting Markoosie Patsauk, an Inuit writer and one that I’m going to look into as soon as I finish writing responses to who it isn’t (it isn’t Markoosie, by the way). Always wonderful to discover a new name!

.

Sherry Hinman has—just under the wire too I might add—submitted three more names: Paul Quarrington, Stuart McLean and George Elliott Clarke. And because this is the last entry and my brain is fried from thinking about living and dead authors who have nothing to do with our book club, I’m simply reporting it and have zippity doo dah to add. Neither of them are coming, by the way. (Oh, and Sherry also wanted to know WHY Stephen Harper cannot be our author?) Answer: do you really want to be asked to wait outside during question period—at our own meeting??

.

_______