I LIKE YOUR REVIEW. I believe that today most narrative is fiction with same degree of "verosimilitud" which it is not real or does not belong to the reign of reality, historical facts, etc. And it is fine, but it is not my cup of tea. Imagination is fine, but personally I like a quote of realism in narrative.
And I am not taking about science fiction or fantasy.
Thanks, Eugenia. Yes, I have been giving this a lot of thought. I think Amanda Coplin might have been better off if she had set her story in a fictional place that looks and feels like reality but doesn't require historicity. Thomas Hardy created his Wessex, where "hap" could reign supreme, although even he was criticized (and rightly, I think) for going too far–forcing his story unnaturally to sustain his poetic vision–in Jude the Obscure.
I haven't read the book yet, but based on the title and your post and Chalk the Sun's post, I wonder if the historical setting isn't Biblically related. Chalk the Sun mentioned that Colpin takes the reader back 100 years to a pristine, pure land (she said it a lot more eloquently than that).
So perhaps the idea was to create a Garden of Eden setting (purity, apples – hmmm, am I being too literal?) but within our historical grasp, to make some sort of social commentary. So the end effect is a mythical-historical novel? Not having read the book, I'm really clutching at straws here! But your posts are always so beautifully thought provoking that it's hard not to comment even without having read the book… oh dear.
Letizia, it's great to see you back on the grid! Yes, I wondered about a biblical setting too. But if that's what she meant, for me it didn't come across. Maybe if she had contained everything within the orchard, instead of the state penitentiary and other places. I don't want people to get the wrong impression about my complaint with the book: I love it that the book can make me ask so many questions. As a writer interested in craft, in what works and what doesn't, these are the things I ponder. She's a writer worth reading, and as you can see, I have only compared her to some pretty amazing writers.
Ah, yes, the state penitentiary doesn't really fit in with my whole Bible theory, hahaha!
I definitely want to read her work now. Your thoughts on her writing showcased the complexity of her writing. I agree, I love when a book makes you question the writing process itself.
Yes, slowly getting back on the grid! After the hurricane and lack of electricity, it took us all a while to catch up with work!
–Well, you could think of it like this, Tom. Different writers have different reasons for using historical authenticity in their stories. Your own book is plot driven, with the events around the Pinochet coup taking center stage. Given this, if you had been as sloppy as Coplin was, you'd have damaged your credibility. This is not necessarily the case with her book (though I acknowledge that her credibility did take a hit in your eyes.) Unlike your book, Coplin's book is character driven; therefore, what's most important for her readers is whether her characters act believably within their context — whatever that context might be.
Let's say you're an author and that each one of your readers has a finite sum of "attention" that he gives to you for the duration of the story. Think of this attention as having a 1:1 relationship to the attention that you, as the author, must allot to the different elements of your story. Thus, when you write the story, you must allot one part of the reader's attention for the characters and another part for the back story, the scenery, and everything else.
Of course you need a certain baseline amount for attention to the scenery, but as you go beyond that amount, you are taking away from attention the reader can give to the other elements. OK, so what does that mean? It means before you write your story, you have to think some of this stuff through: Here's how many colloquialisms am I going to insert into this guy's dialogue? How much are characters going to say about current events. How much detail do I go into when describing the current technology.
I think it's important for any author to avoid coming off as too sloppy or bored with her characters' surroundings. Was Coplin sloppy? Was she bored? I read the book, and I didn't think so. I remember noticing some of the same things you did. I remember myself asking, Could this really have happened? more than once. But I also remember shaking my head (Nah. This couldn't have happened) and moving along without skipping a beat.
David, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I still struggle to explain my objection–what caused me not to believe/accept the story. Ultimately, I think it comes down to verisimilitude, the willing suspension of disbelief. I was unwilling, and I think it's because the characters did not seem real. When a novelist chooses to write a story in a historical setting covering a long arc of time, then it seems to me the characters must deal with a lot of stuff, things like earning a living and worrying about money, their own changing attitudes and self-contradictions over time, the ups and downs and complexities of friendships, their dreams and hopes and sexual desires, their fears and failures. None of this is seriously broached in the Orchardist. The characters seem fixed in their behavior, fixated in their motivation, and monomaniacal. Although you say it is plot driven, I hope my own novel shows some of the internal conflict that is inherent in a character-driven story, at least one that is set in a historical reality.