Debut Author Snapshot: Adelle Waldman
Posted by Goodreads on June 25, 2013
A former journalist for the New Haven Register, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and The Wall Street Journal, Waldman now focuses on fiction writing. She shares some snapshots that capture the writers' lifestyle in Brooklyn—a favored stomping ground of aspiring and celebrated novelists.

Adelle Waldman: Many! Looking back, I feel as if I was an innocent when I started. One of the things that surprised me, as a woman, was that relationships played a smaller role in my protagonist's mental life than I think they do in the mental lives of many women. That is, as much as Nate thinks about women—and about sex and about whether or not he is desirable to women—his self-esteem is not dependent on whether he is in a relationship. He is very consumed by his career, and he spends more time thinking about women generally than he does worrying about any one relationship.
As women, I think many of us are also consumed by our careers, but we also oftentimes spend a lot of time thinking about and talking about the ins and outs of our romantic relationships. That reflects how important they are to many of us. (And by the way, I'm not saying I think the way women are is worse—or better—or that any of this is innate. I think a lot of what I am talking about is a function of social forces that play out differently for men and women—the way single women are perceived and the assumptions that are made about a woman who is not in a relationship, which tend to be less flattering than the assumptions made about single men.) When Nate is in a relationship that begins to founder, his default is generally to pull away rather than think about what the underlying issues are because the relationship is not so deeply linked up with his sense of self. He doesn't have the incentive to investigate it or his own psychology. This is what is, ultimately, so confusing for the woman on the other side, who assumes—not unreasonably—that his investment is at least proportional to hers. I don't think all men are like Nate, but I think some are, and that's something women should keep in mind.

AW: I've spent countless hours thinking about and talking to female friends about my relationships and theirs; together we've analyzed the behavior of so many bad boyfriends. So I had a lot of material to draw on when I began this novel. I also have two older brothers and have always had male friends. While I didn't explicitly conduct any interviews for this book, I did learn a lot from those relationships. And I did borrow a good line here and there from various of my male friends—little nuggets that revealed something of "guy think" to me.
GR: One Goodreads reviewer says, "If you care enough about Nate to truly loathe him (or at least disapprove of him), then [Waldman's] done her job." Do you like Nate? Do you have to like a character to write him or her well?
AW: What was most important to me was that Nate feel real. I also felt that I needed to be fair to him. What I mean is, I didn't want the book to come off as a screed, intended to show Nate up as a jerk. I wanted Nate to behave in ways that I think are typical of a certain type of guy, and while I wanted to be unsparing in exposing how he thinks, for better and for worse, I didn't want to exaggerate or make the character into a caricature. At the same time, I tried to stop myself from analyzing Nate too much when I was writing the book, from deciding whether I thought he was good or bad. What seemed more important was that I inhabited his mind as fully as possible. I figured once I had made him feel real, I could then stand back and judge. But I didn't want to judge first and then write the character to conform to my preexisting opinion, which seemed like a recipe for creating a one-dimensional character.

GR: What are some of your favorite books about the intricate dance of men and women?
AW: What comes to mind first and foremost are a lot of older novels. Relationships have changed so much—not only in terms of our more casual attitudes about sex, but even the idea that we have long-term monogamous relationships prior to, or simply distinct from, marriage—but I think that in terms of the deeper psychology of romantic relationships, much has stayed the same. The way Henry Crawford is a cad in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park would fundamentally be as caddish now as it was then—it's his willingness to sacrifice other people's happiness for the satisfaction of his own vanity that makes him unappealing, not his failure to conform to old-fashioned ideas of sexual morality. Similarly, Lydgate's susceptibility to beautiful, trivial Rosamond in Middlemarch is also timeless: Lydgate is ultimately a victim of his own sexist ideas about women, and the specific turn of his sexism, the way what he looked for in women was primarily ornamental, is far from dated. Julian Sorel's egoistic vacillations in The Red and the Black, Madame Bovary's conflation of drama and exultation with love—these things are timeless.
Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Charly
(new)
Jun 27, 2013 11:57AM

reply
|
flag




Please do write that one!!!! I would be very interested to know. Thanks


I'm always interested in how others perceive the dance between men and women. Glen clearly has a point, however I think it's more interesting to examine the topic without trying to balance the male and female point of view.



The question is...doesn't this also hold true for women and their relationship with dad? We'll see where this author takes us?
