As the MF'ing Blog Tour nears its end, I decided to do something a bit different today. What follows is a conversation I recently had with the author of the new novel
, Mark Rayner. As
are both absurdist satirical novels (his publisher calls it "fabulist satire," and who am I to argue?), I thought it would be interesting for us to sit down and discuss our respective writing processes and fetishes (primates for him, angels and linoleum for me).
The second half of this conversation will appear on Mark's blog,
.
Mark Rayner: Why angels? ARE they the new vampires?
Rob Kroese: No. Zombies are the new vampires. Angels are the new zombies.
I'm kind of glad you asked that, actually, because it gives me a chance to ask you: what the hell is up with you and monkeys?
MR: It's not just the monkeys. It's all primates. In fact, it's the great apes that are the most fun, because they're the closest to us genetically. (And that doesn't include the Barbary Ape, which I'll grant you has ape in its name, but is more accurately known as a Barbary Macaque. Did you know it's the only other primate allowed to roam freely in Europe -- I mean, apart from humans and English football hooligans?)
Mostly, I like them because they remind us that we're animals. With thermonuclear weapons. But still, animals.
So if angels are the new zombies, where do you suppose robots fit into all this? What if Mercury came back in a sequel as a good robot who was going to protect the hero?
RK: Nobody writes about robots anymore, man. Robots are like, so 20 years ago.
And 20 years from now. We're at the nadir of the robot cycle.
It occurs to me, now that you've brought up the painful memory of robots, that we both write something close to science fiction that isn't quite science fiction. Your publisher calls what you write "fabulist satire." So my questions for you are (1) Can I use that term too, or is it like trademarked or something? And (2) Are we at the forefront of a new literary movement, or are we just not very good marketers?
MR: According to one of the reviewers of Marvellous Hairy, the novel is leading a new WAVE of fabulist satire, and I would say that Mercury Falls is also in the vanguard of this new literary movement. Marketing, like robots, is so 20 years ago. Now it's all about synergies. And conversations. Hey, let's write a manifesto!
RK: Ugh. I wrote one of those once. It was like Jerry Maguire, except that in real life, instead of firing you, your boss pats you on the back and then completely ignores you. Bureaucracies are far more insidious in real life than in the movies.
MR: I agree -- so did the pat down by your boss prompt the satirizing of bureaucracies in Mercury Falls?
RK: To some extent, I guess. But I've always been puzzled by the idea (held by a lot of religious
people) that once you die and go to heaven, everything is crystal clear and perfect. But what if things aren't any clearer in heaven than they are here?
What if the angels are all kind of stumbling about in the dark as well? And yet, they're ANGELS, so they're supposed to know what's going on. So they adopt this sort of bureaucratic bluster where they insist that everything be done "by the book," because the only way they can make sense of the universe is to assume that SOMEBODY knows what's going on, and that if they just follow the correct procedures, things will work out. And if course, isn't that basically what people do most of the time?
Marvellous Hairy doesn't have as much bureaucratic idiocy, but in its place is corporate greed. Tell us how you really feel about gigantic multinational corporations (keep in mind that I work at Google).
MR: Oh, well Google doesn't count though, because it's, you know, NOT evil. At least, I think I read that on your mission statement, or was that the Manifesto?
I believe that large corporations can be just as bureaucratic as any other large institution, but my main beef with them is they get preferential treatment. Especially in North America and the UK. And really, corporations have just one function -- to generate profits for the shareholders. Or, as Rob (Goodman) says in Marvellous Hairy: "But Gargantuan is a corporation: It's built to make a profit the way that your Jurassic Park T-Rex is built to eat lawyers sitting on a toilet."
RK: I actually agree with you there (and that's one of my favorite lines from the book, by the way). In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm always puzzled when people say things like, "Those insurance companies are only concerned about their profits." Well, duh. That's like saying "All that tiger cares about is killing slower animals and eating them." What exactly do you expect from a tiger? Corporations can be useful things, but they're not about providing scholarships or protecting the environment or even giving people jobs. They're about making money. Period.
The paranoia about big corporations in Marvellous Hairy actually reminds me of some of the novels of one of my favorite authors, Phillip Dick. Are you a big Phillip Dick fan? (You can thank me for not asking you if you're a big fan of Dick.) Are there other authors of whom you think, "Man, if I could just write like that guy (or girl)..."?
MR: Yes, I love Philip K. Dick, and you're not the first person to make that observation. (And thanks, by the way.) I also love Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, Tom Robbins, and if I can get arty for a moment, Italo Calvino. Of course, I've only ever read him in translation, so who knows, maybe in the original Italian he's no good. I also love the sheer gutsiness of Chuck Palahniuk's writing -- not so much the prose -- but how he's willing to pretty much write anything and let the disturbing chips fall where they may.
In the world of the theatre, I really admire Tom Stoppard. He also does lots of screenplays, like "Shakespeare in Love", but I don't hold that against him. (That movie would have been much better if they'd gotten Travis the Chimp to play the lead, instead of Joseph Fiennes.)
I got a Douglas Adams and Christopher Moore vibe from Mercury Falls.
Do you read those guys? Are there other writers who inspire you? Or, who do you really hate as a writer?
RK: I can't deny the Douglas Adams influence. He really opened the door for novels like Mercury Falls. Beyond him, I have to admit that I've
(ironically) read very little humor. People keep comparing Mercury Falls to Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's Good Omens, which I had never heard of until I was about halfway through MF. I picked up a copy and read it enough to see that while there are similarities in tone and subject matter, I took a pretty different tack.
The other name that reviewers keep mentioning is Christopher Moore, but I've never read anything by him. Lamb is on my list though. I'm hoping it's good, because otherwise my book really sucks.
I'm with you on Dick and Vonnegut. As for writers I hate. well, there is a ton of bad writing out there, but you can't really blame bad writers for that. I reserve my hatred for the publishers who keep churning it out and the sheep who keep lapping it up. And unfortunately, it seems we're headed further in that direction. Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target are warring over the latest book about vampires or Sarah Palin (note to publishers: you know, it wouldn't be that hard to combine those two genres), and meanwhile, decent writers go completely unnoticed. Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see Mercury Falls on an end cap at Target, but I wrote the book for people who like smart, funny, entertaining fiction. I don't believe in pandering to my audience; I wrote the sort of book I wanted to read, and if other people want to read it too, that's fantastic.
Speaking of pandering to one's audience. You're Canadian, but I assume that a large percentage of your readership is American. Do you feel yourself accommodating Americans in the way you write (not just in spellings, but in the way you use language in general, such as the use of idioms?)
MR: That's an excellent question, because yes, I do have a lot of readers in the US. I also have a lot of readers in the UK. And I'm Canadian, and I know for sure that someday some smartass on the CBC is going to ask me why I spell it "color" not "colour", and aren't I being a traitor to our nation by not including the completely unnecessary "u"? And I'll say: "no, I'm not. And why do you do so many interviews with US writers?" And they'll say, "our listeners are interested" and I'll say, "well then we're both hypocrites, aren't we? Besides, "colour" looks stupid." And then I'll go and do something contradictory like spell Marvellous Hairy with two "l"s. (I tried it with three, but Hailry just didn't make sense.) In terms of idioms, I just go for it, knowing some people will get them and some won't
-- on both sides of the pond and north and south of the 49th parallel -- I just try not to overdo any idiom.
Do you have a favourite idiom?
RK: I always liked the phrase, "Trying to braze an iron goat." There are just certain times when no other words are really adequate, you know?
MR: You're just trying to drive up the stock price of Google aren't you? I know it. I've always liked the idiom "woolgathering'? It is deliciously archaic. Speaking of archaic, did you consult any ancient tomes (other than the Bible) in writing MF? Is there a Jane's book that covers the various makes of Flaming Swords?
RK: Somebody once said that the great thing about writing fiction is that you don't have to do any research, and I take that maxim to heart. I Googled "demon names" to find names for some of the characters, and I had to look up the lyrics of Dishwalla's "Counting Blue Cars," but calling what I did "research" is like calling Twilight "literature."
**********************************
My conversation with Mark Rayner concludes tomorrow (Wednesday) at The Skwib. Don't miss it.
More about Marvellous Hairy here.
More about Mercury Falls here.