New England Review

  • Subscribe/Order
  • Back Issues
    • Vol. 43, No. 4 (2022)
    • Vol. 43, No. 3 (2022)
    • Vol. 43, No. 2 (2022)
    • Vol. 43, No. 1 (2022)
    • Vol. 42, No. 4 (2021)
    • Vol. 42, No. 3 (2021)
    • Vol. 42, No. 2 (2021)
    • Vol. 42, No. 1 (2021)
    • Vol. 41 (2020)
      • Vol. 41, No. 4 (2020)
      • Vol. 41, No. 3 (2020)
      • Vol. 41, No. 2 (2020)
      • Black Lives Matter
      • Vol. 41, No.1 (2020)
    • Vol. 40 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No. 4 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No. 3 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No. 2 (2019)
      • Vol. 40, No 1 (2019)
    • Vol. 39 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 4 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 3 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 2 (2018)
      • Vol. 39, No. 1 (2018)
    • Vol. 38 (2017)
      • Vol. 38, No. 4 (2017)
      • Vol. 38, No. 3 (2017)
      • Vol.38, No. 2 (2017)
      • Vol. 38, No. 1 (2017)
    • Vol. 37 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 4 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 3 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 2 (2016)
      • Vol. 37, No. 1 (2016)
    • Vol. 36 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 4 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 3 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 2 (2015)
      • Vol. 36, No. 1 (2015)
    • Vol. 35 (2014-2015)
      • Vol. 35, No.1 (2014)
      • Vol. 35, No. 2 (2014)
      • Vol. 35, No. 3 (2014)
      • Vol. 35, No. 4 (2015)
    • Vol. 34 (2013-2014)
      • Vol. 34, No. 1 (2013)
      • Vol. 34, No. 2 (2013)
      • Vol. 34, Nos. 3-4 (2014)
    • Vol. 33 (2012-2013)
      • Vol. 33, No. 1 (2012)
      • Vol. 33, No. 2 (2012)
      • Vol. 33, No. 3 (2012)
      • Vol. 33, No. 4 (2013)
    • Vol. 32 (2011-2012)
      • Vol. 32, No. 1 (2011)
      • Vol. 32, No. 2 (2011)
      • Vol. 32, No. 3 (2011)
      • Vol. 32, No. 4 (2012)
    • Vol. 31 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 1 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 2 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 3 (2010)
      • Vol. 31, No. 4 (2010-2011)
    • Vol. 30 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 1 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 2 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 3 (2009)
      • Vol. 30, No. 4 (2009-2010)
    • Vol. 29 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 1 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 2 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 3 (2008)
      • Vol. 29, No. 4 (2008)
    • Vol. 28 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 1 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 2 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 3 (2007)
      • Vol. 28, No. 4 (2007)
    • Vol. 27 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 1 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 2 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 3 (2006)
      • Vol. 27, No. 4 (2006)
    • Vol. 26 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 1 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 2 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 3 (2005)
      • Vol. 26, No. 4 (2005)
    • Vol. 25 (2004)
      • Vol. 25, Nos. 1-2 (2004)
      • Vol. 25, No. 3 (2004)
      • Vol. 25, No. 4 (2004)
    • Vol. 24 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 1 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 2 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 3 (2003)
      • Vol. 24, No. 4 (2004)
  • About
    • Masthead
    • NER Award Winners
    • Press
    • Award for Emerging Writers
    • Readers and Interns
    • Books by our authors
    • Contact
  • Audio
  • Events
  • Submit

Behind the Byline

Yoon Choi

July 2, 2018

NER author Yoon Choi

NER author Yoon Choi talks with our editorial panel member Rose Whitmore about Choi’s story “The Art of Losing” (NER 38.2), the balance in relationships, and “how many solutions in a story are solutions of craft.”

“The Art of Losing” was selected by guest editor Roxane Gay for Best American Short Stories 2018.

 

Rose Whitmore: This beautiful story examines the dueling and combined consciousnesses of an aging couple: Mo-Sae and Young-Ja. Alternating points of view present such a wild ride in short stories. Can you talk about how this story took shape for you?

Yoon Choi: I began this story after many years—over a decade—away from writing. Maybe I had to be a little dishonest with myself to get going. I called this thing I was writing an idea, an exercise, a sketch—anything but a story. What I remember about that early version is the plot: a grandfather gets lost and drowns in a municipal pond. At some point, as the story got longer—not necessarily better, just longer—I began to encounter real challenges in narrating from Mo-Sae’s perspective. Simply put, the man had Alzheimer’s. There were too many things he couldn’t remember. In that sense, the decision to introduce another point of view, the wife’s, was simply a practical one. In her modest and self-effacing way, Young-Ja was useful in supplementing Mo-Sae’s narration. Still, many pages later, in one of those weird writing moments, I found that Mo-Sae would return the favor, telling the rest of their story when Young-Ja herself could not.

RW: One wonderful line of Mo-Sae’s stayed with me long after I put the story down: “He gets the impression that he is already looking back on a life; a life divested of time, ego, and even regard; a life weary of its own argument.” This line captures the essence of the story. How did you come to these characters at this moment in their lives, and how did you approach them as a manifestation of their own “arguments”?

YC: I like that line too—can I say that? Probably because, unlike most others, it was not such a struggle to write.

To answer your question, I suspect that in most quiet lives, there is a self that whispers arguments for itself—that says, Self, you have value and meaning. (Perhaps this is true of all lives, quiet or otherwise.) With Mo-Sae and Young-Ja, I wondered how these elderly characters would respond as their sense of self was challenged by the realities of old age. Physical decline, memory loss, the inability to be persons of useful service. How, or even whether, they would take up their old “arguments” in light of these limitations.

RW: The relationship between your characters carries all the harbingers of a long-weathered marriage. Mo-Sae’s anger and defiance wilt into tenderness and confusion, almost grounding him. When you were writing his point-of-view, did you see anger or willfulness as a tool or a trait for his character? How did that fit in with Young-Ja’s more practical, dutiful work ethic?

YC: I see many aspects of Mo-Sae and Young-Ja’s personalities—his impatience, her subservience—as culturally conventional rather than specific to the character. I think that for people of a certain generation, of a certain background, such conventions can feel like . . . home.

Definitely, there are the moments in this story in which the characters act in an unconventional way. I’m thinking of Young-Ja’s friendship with Mr. Sorenson (although the dynamic still has her at a disadvantage) or Mo-Sae’s flashes of sympathy toward Young-Ja at the end of the story. But I think these moments are unusual and even taxing on the characters.

RW: In the marriages you write, here and in your other stories, there’s almost always a secret self that coexists alongside a shared identity. This story, for example, is a balance of things withheld—either on purpose (on Young-Ja’s part) or as consequence or manifestation of disease (in the case of Mo-Sae). How difficult was it to strike that balance for these two characters?

YC: I think you’ve just written a good definition of marriage, fictional or otherwise! A balance between secret selves. I love that. And I definitely think that that exists: most marriages find a balance between communication and held silences, shared sympathies and self-tending. This may even hold true for characters like Mo-Sae and Young-Ja, who probably don’t give much thought to the concept of marriage or the idea of secret selves. They just are married. They just are who they are.

I wasn’t attempting anything so self-aware as “striking a balance for the characters.” I was more . . . grasping in the dark, feeling my way through attitudes that each character would probably have left unarticulated.

RW: There are a few really striking details that stay with me: the first is the way that Mo-Sae “memorizes” English. It’s such a powerful, bizarre, and almost terror-filled act. What was the origin of this moment in your writing?

YC: When I first read this question, I absolutely couldn’t remember this moment in the story. At a random moment later in the day, it came to me: I once had a Sunday School teacher with a face scarred by smallpox. I remember two things about her. Once, she gave us a demonstration of sin using a pitcher of water and food coloring. Another time, she told us that she had learned English by eating a page of the dictionary each time she had memorized the words. Decades later, I had Mo-Sae do the same.

RW: There is a beautiful moment between Mo-Sae and his grandson when they go out to buy ice cream and the boy dumps a can of coins into a swimming pool. Together, they share a boyhood fascination watching the coins sink. How did you approach capturing the emotional devastation of Alzheimer’s there?

YC: I had so much trouble writing this scene and the logistics surrounding it! For some reason, the sheer mechanics of getting grandpa and grandson out of the apartment, down to the ground floor, through the gate, and to the swimming pool were beyond my writing ability. I wasn’t sure how much of “they did this” and “then they did that” the reader could take. These mechanical details were so frustrating that, once I got the verbs in place, the other elements of the scene—description, emotion—seemed to simply emerge.

RW: There is an element of questioning in this piece, almost as if the story is interrogating itself. A beautiful example of that is when Mo-Sae chooses to have his solo in the choir. We can’t say what he was thinking, all we know is what the crowd saw. Were you conscious of this juxtaposition when you were writing it? 

YC: I realize as I try to answer your perceptive questions, Rose, how little I know when I write, and how many solutions in a story are solutions of craft. I can only guess that I left Mo-Sae’s point of view during the moment of his solo probably because I thought it would be more cruel and effective to do so. Because in his mind, he really is singing a solo. From his perspective, he is in his glory. Perhaps I thought this would be a good and truthful moment to step back and have the reader perceive him in his lonely delusions.

 

Buy the issue today! Or better yet, SUBSCRIBE!

Yoon Choi is a graduate of the Writing Seminars at Johns Hopkins University and a 2017 recipient of a Stegner Fellowship in Fiction at Stanford University. Her work has most recently been published in Michigan Quarterly Review and Chicago Quarterly Review. She lives with her four children and her husband in Anaheim, California.

Rose Whitmore serves on the editorial panel for nonfiction at NER and is a current Stegner Fellow. Her writing has appeared in Colorado Review, Alaska Quarterly Review, Iowa Review, and others. She is the recipient of a work-study scholarship from the Bread Loaf Writer’s Conference, a residency from Hedgebrook, and the 2013 Peden Prize from the Missouri Review.

Filed Under: News & Notes Tagged With: Behind the Byline, Rose Whitmore, Yoon Choi

Behind the Byline

Eric Severn

August 4, 2016

IMG_2661Author Eric Severn spoke with NER Editorial Panel member Rose Whitmore about “A Partial Inventory of Things That Didn’t Work” (NER 37.2). Severn’s oh-so honest essay inspired their conversation about the processes of writing, struggling, and living, and the ultimate goal of getting better at failing.

 

RW: “A Partial Inventory of Things That Didn’t Work” has a unique structure. It is an inventory, first and foremost, but evolves into an examination of pain and struggle. How did this essay take shape for you? Did it start out as a list or evolve into one?

ES: I don’t know that I would say “A Partial Inventory” started out as a list per se, though the idea did quickly become an important structural factor before I had finished a first draft. And I would also say that once I realized I was working within the confines of a list, the piece became much easier to write, which is often my experience. The quicker I can figure out what kind of formal constraints I’m working with, the quicker a piece of writing feels more manageable. Artists are always saying that constraints help realize creativity. Stravinsky said it well: “The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one’s self. And the arbitrariness of the constraint serves only to obtain precision of execution.” My experience writing tends to be in line with this, and it was especially true with “The Inventory.”

What gave the essay momentum for me was the refrain “It didn’t work.” As much as I think about structure while writing, I tend to write from a place of tone. I need to feel right away that something rings true in the tone, that the musicality or rhythm—the cadence—draws me in and makes me want to write more. This is a slight exaggeration, but I sometimes feel that what compels me to stick with a first draft has less to do with the narrative and more to do with where the sound is going. I want to follow the cadence and rhythm to where it ends. Of course, form and content are very difficult to separate, so in the end it’s hard to extract tone from the story told. Tone is the story told. A change in the tonal register will literally change the story, especially when you consider that tone consists of word choice, diction, and the particulars at the level of the sentence.

But in regards to “Inventory,” the refrain “It didn’t work” also opened up the subject matter of my past in an important way. Life, our experiences, moments of pain or joy or suffering, they’re never simple and the idea of something “working” or “not working” is a very reductive and black and white way of thinking. Something about the tension between these opposites—the complexities and nuances of actual experience and the reworking of those experiences into simplistic categories—it allowed me to confront the subject matter more honestly, without all the baggage I’ve brought in the past when trying to write about my childhood. It was an unburdening, to write this way, a license to think about my experiences in their most elemental form. Much like formal constraints, I found the idea of things working or not working, however simplistic, a necessary vehicle to write about the complexities of my experiences.

RW: There is such a beautiful balance between moments of hope and moments of things “not working” in this piece. Through these moments we span a lot of time, from your childhood to your adult life. How hard was it to cover this distance? Was it difficult to find the balance and momentum of the piece?

ES: Surprisingly, the span felt really natural when writing it. I say surprisingly because writing a piece that covers a great deal of time is always hugely challenging for me. I like to write stories and essays that take place in a few hours or a day. I like to feel like the temporal content is straight forward, otherwise I get overwhelmed. For years I had grappled with writing pieces that span a few months, and I think I’ve only pulled one off. But when I started writing “Inventory,” fairly quickly I realized the piece would go into adulthood. As much as I’d like to say this fluency in covering a great temporal distance is indicative of me finally becoming comfortable writing about large swaths of time, I think it has more to do with the events themselves. It just felt natural to follow the narrative into adulthood. I know the story so well. It’s my story. If this were a piece of fiction, if I were making the events up, the distance probably would have felt very unwieldy to me, so much so that I might have avoided writing it. I look at Anthony Doerr, and I’m just blown away by how much time he can cover in a short story. His story “The Deep,” for instance covers, what, thirty-years, more, and he strings the scenes together so naturally. I’m impressed when a writer can cover great swaths of time in a fluid, cohesive way, as he does. Or Jenny Hollowell’s really short piece, “A History of Everything Including You.” That story is just over three pages, and it covers a lifetime. Talk about narrative talent.

As far as balancing the momentum of “Inventory,” it was most difficult when writing about Kaitlin and our cross country relationship. That was such a deeply formative relationship and experience for me, and I really wanted to slow the narrative movement down for it, but not too much. I didn’t want the essay to be about Kaitlin, but I also knew that Kaitlin was the point in the piece that really highlighted some of the narrative synchronicity, the repeating images and rhyming action. I spent a lot of time with those moments, trying to find the exact point of tension. Furthermore, Kaitlin was hard to write because I’m writing about falling in love. There’s nothing harder than writing about falling in love. Except maybe writing about violence.

RW: Aside from the focus on things that didn’t work, there are so many mirrors in this essay; you and your mom, you and Stan, your relationship with your father, your relationship with women and children. Was this mirroring something that you focused on, or did that happen organically?

There’s a great essay by Robert Boswell in his book The Half-Known World called “Narrative Spandrels,” and it deals with the kind of mirroring you’re talking about. Boswell advocates, and I think for good reason, that drawing out these narrative mirrors, or “spandrels,” as he calls them, should be an organic process. Otherwise, you get into all kinds of problems with contrived plots and etc. He also talks about uncovering, refining and sharpening these “spandrels” or mirrors through the revision process, letting them develop, as you say, organically. I think for a lot of writers this idea works. Probably, in fact, for most writers. But I’ll admit, (and I feel a little self-conscious saying this) I don’t really write that way. I’ve always tried to turn my analytic mind off during a first draft to let these kinds of mirrors develop organically, but usually by the time I’ve written a first paragraph I can’t stop thinking about the metaphorical significance of this or that, or the bigger idea, or where some kind of rhyming action might occur later. At best, as I mentioned earlier, I can get myself to focus on the tone of a piece for a while rather than its thematic concerns, but only for a while.

This is something I’m trying to change. I’d like to write those early drafts from a less analytic headspace, but that kind of writing really doesn’t come naturally to me. In order for me to complete a first draft, two things need to be in place: The tone, but I also need to feel that a lot of the narrative nuances, the mirrors, the rhyming action, the metaphorical significance—all that stuff—I need to have a sense that it’s kind of already in place. And to be honest, I don’t really like this about my process. It’s a pain in the ass. If you focus too much on tone and theme, you miss narrative movement. A piece can quickly feel turgid as a result. I’d like to turn my head off more. And yet, with “Inventory,” and maybe this is because I was writing about such intimate content, I found myself writing from an organic, almost subconscious place. But I wonder about this because writing fiction and nonfiction are simply different for me. When I’m writing nonfiction, I know the story. That changes things. It relieves a little bit of the anxiety I tend to feel in the writing process. I know where I’m going, and because of this I sometimes feel like I can play around a little more, and write from a more open place, which is probably counter intuitive. But what isn’t, when it comes to writing.

RW: Although it’s a very serious essay, you use of humor to undercut painful events in a really delicate and effective way. Do you use humor in your other work and if so, how do you manage the balance between humor and pain?

ES: I love this question. Humor is so important to me. Without humor, I’d give up. I’d shut down and call it quits. The writers that I’ve really fallen in love with, Don DeLillo and Barry Hannah and Leonard Michaels, just to name a few, so much of what I love about their work is their humor. But beyond that, it’s their ability to mix heart and pathos with humor, especially Barry Hannah. I am continually floored by the mix of beauty, sorrow, suffering, and humor in his prose. How does he do it?  Humor is tricky, and really subjective, but for me it’s oddly linked to honesty. My mom is one of the funniest people I know. She can still make me laugh uncontrollably, but part of what she and I laugh about is how often things don’t work, how hard and full of sorrow and shitty life can feel. If you push the shit far enough, it gets comical. She used to have this blue suitcase, and it was the suitcase I used when traveling back and forth from North Carolina to California, and my mom started calling it the Trauma Case, because every time I packed it, I was going through something traumatic. The T.C., we called it. “Get the T.C. out,” she’d say after I booked another ticket to North Carolina. That was funny, despite how hard it was.

From a craft perspective, part of balancing humor with pain is trying to highlight those moments where pain and suffering approach the comic. In “Inventory” there’s that bit about my mom attacking the neighbor. I know my mom has a great deal of shame around that. And I also know that it wasn’t funny. It was serious and also a really, really difficult period for my mom. And yet, it is funny in a darkly comic way. It’s funny in the same way that if something doesn’t work, and keeps not working, eventually it becomes comic. The balance exists in not trying cover up what is painful with humor, but rather letting humor arise from what is painful.

RW: The ending to this essay is so haunting and yet opens the door in a way for things to start working again. Can you speak about where you are now and what you’re working on?

I wrote “Inventory” during the fall of 2014, and it was a very difficult year. I had just received my MFA. That summer I had gone to Europe and tried to have some kind of grandiose experience. Instead I got homesick, wept in a hostel in Poland and came home. All of 2014 I struggled with what a lot of young writers struggle with, which is trying to justify and believe in the work of writing. Plus, I couldn’t find a job. I was broke, in debt, stuck in a bad relationship, the usual narrative. Just all around feeling lost, so I wrote the piece from a place of things not working. But that’s where stories come from. Stories exist and arise out of the tension of things not working, and change, and the possibility of things working. The beauty and tension of a compelling narrative is that it’s a space in which characters are walked to the limits of what they can handle, and sometimes it’s too much. Sometimes those limits end in tragedy. But often times the possibility of real change, of things working, only exists as the byproduct of tragedy, or loss, or profound suffering.

A few months after I finished “Inventory” my dad died. I had only met him a couple times in my twenties, but his death was pretty complicated, and hit a deep nerve. It confused me, and I’m still confused by it. But I’m writing about it, and that’s part of what I’m working on now. The piece is a massive pain in the ass to write. But what piece isn’t? One of my mentors says every piece of writing is a problem. I think she’s right. So that’s one of my current problems. The other current problem is trying to get a novel going. I’m a slow writer. It’s hard work. And I worry. Christ, how I worry. What did Beckett say? “Fail once, fail better.” Something like that. And so that’s really what I’m working on . . . getting better at failing.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Behind the Byline, Eric Severn, Rose Whitmore


Vol. 44, No. 1

Subscribe

NER Digital

Tomas Venclova

Literature & Democracy

Tomas Venclova

“A principled stance against aggression should never turn into blind hatred. Such hatred does not help anyone to win . . .”

Sign up for our newsletter

Click here to join our list and receive occasional news and always-great writing.

categories

Navigation

  • Subscribe/Order
  • Support NER
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Audio
  • Back Issues
  • Emerging Writers Award
  • Events
  • Podcast

ner via email

Stories, poems, essays, and web features delivered to your Inbox.

Categories

Copyright © 2023 · facebook · twitter

 

Loading Comments...