Anyone who has ever been in hospital knows that it’s the secondary stuff that gets you. I have a dear friend who is presently battling leukemia, and with everything he is going through, it’s a terrible case of dry eye that is causing him the most aggravation. Certainly, with my recent operation the same was true — all the “important” things were just fine, but getting the rest of me in working order has been the big issue. I’ve been thinking about how the same is true with writing. I know my first break came with the production and publication of my poetry play, Dreams of May, and that was a piece I created “on the side” while I took breaks from the supposedly primary work of writing my novel. I can’t help but wonder whether without that “secondary” piece of work, Tangled Roots would have ever gotten published at all.
Grace Paley, perhaps the greatest short story writer of her generation, always said that every story must be made 0f two stories. And anyone who has ever watched as many episodes of Frasier as I have been lately will know that those writers certainly believed it to be true. But as my brain slowly starts returning to the writing of my second novel, I am becoming more and more aware of the primary importance of the secondary (if you will) in novel-writing as well. The idea for the novel came from one main story, one main character. But as I approach the end of the first draft I realize that it is actually the secondary plots and characters which create the world in which that first character will live. They are the ones who will keep the reader focussed, interested, worried, annoyed, relieved, while the so-called main character’s story unfolds. Indeed, it is the richness of their lives that allows the life of the main character to really have meaning.
I suppose I am now beginning to really believe that there is no such thing as a true distinction between primary and secondary. Everything is important; everything must be attended to. It is all the same.
Now here’s a short clip from recent popular culture’s most wonderful example of what I’m talking about…the character of Niles Crane from Frasier:
What a really interesting point and yes, you’re so right about the secondary characters, the things that run side by side with the main story. I’d never really stopped to think about it too much, but there’s no doubt how those characters and other stories are always there.
I think the clip shows it perfectly, dear old Niles!
Hope you are soon well and full of energy again.
Hi! I would have commented on your previous blog – had lots to say about the 50s – the beat poets, etc., how it gave birth to the 60s – but being a member of that generation I lost track of my google password and gave up. So this is just to say it’s good you’re on the mend and no real harm done and glad you’re having time for reflection. All writers need that. An interesting insight today, Sue. Hmmmm…
Sue, I’m also thinking of how sometimes the most absorbing poems are made of two stories … thank you for this food for thought.
So true and a reminder that characters are only made wholly interesting by how they interact with those around them.
As for Niles? He’s just brilliant:-)
fascinating post, Sue – interesting how the central character only exists fully through interraction with the secondary characters, and the CC can only do it if the secondary characters are alive. Kind of like real life. Good to have oyu back in blogging mode