Sugar Sugar

Author Steve Almond read last Thursday, October 11th at the Minneapolis Central Library as part of their “Talk of the Stacks” series. Almond was on tour promoting his newest collection of essays (Not that You Asked): Rants, Exploits, and Obsessions and hoping to unload a few more copies of his last book Candyfreak: A Journey Through the Chocolate Underbelly of America.

The atmosphere was warm and playful, even when addressing sensitive emotional and political topics, much like Almond’s writing in general, and especially his new essay collection. There were bowls of sweets strategically placed around, and Almond wore a candy necklace wrapped around his wrist. Promotional gimmick? Perhaps. But with the progression of the night it began to look more like metaphor. Almond was sweetening weighty issues - like individual moral responsibility - providing an appetizing package for bitter (but essential) public medicine.

Curiously, this approach marks a sharp contrast to Almond’s inspirational figure, the late Kurt Vonnegut, who Almond describes as having a rough and unflinching honesty about the state of the world, in the image of a prophet “howling in [a] hole” (40). He explains:

We don’t mind watching guys like Jon Stewart josh around about that silly war in Iraq, or global warming. But when someone actually points out that our species is goose-stepping toward extinction – without a comfortable laugh line at the end – things get uncomfortable. (26)

And here was an evening determinably comfortable. Laughter abounds as Almond recounts his decision to resign from Boston College by open letter upon hearing about BC’s decision to invite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak at commencement. Almond read a few well-chosen pieces of hatemail he received in the media frenzy, and his creative responses, which were - quite frankly - hysterical.

The same tone is evident in Almond’s three-part essay “The Failed Prophecy of Kurt Vonnegut (and How it Saved My Life)” where he embarrassingly recounts his youthful infatuation with Vonnegut. This love affair produces one crappy undergraduate thesis and sows the seeds of a future creative writer. In the essay Almond is able to track down a copy of said undergraduate thesis:

…which included the proofreading marks of my college pal James Shiffer, who, perhaps not coincidentally, no longer speaks to me. The last page bore a circular stamp at the bottom right. I initially took this to be some sort of academic notarization before coming to recognize it as a large, oddly filigreed coffee stain. (16)

But the atmosphere became decidedly less comfortable when during the Q&A James Shiffer himself raised his hand and stated that he was not aware he and Almond weren’t on speaking terms. Almond handled it as gracefully as he could, even after Shiffer added that – in terms of hatemail – Shiffer had letters from Almond that were comparable to the ones just recently read. The exact relationship between these two men was never clarified, it is possible that Shiffer served in some official capacity at Wesleyan University and was responsible for giving feedback on Almond’s thesis. What did come across clearly was the tension, and it raises interesting questions for other writers.

Why might Almond have slightly exaggerated the rift? In his “Author’s Note” Almond states that the content of his book is “radically subjective, whacked by memory, but true.” Maybe this is all that was happening: memory bias. But exaggerations also make for a better story, a brief moment that is more evocative, more funny. It is condensed, and as such can often produce a more meaningful truth, something that readers can grasp onto and feel. Every writer knows this.

Yet, how necessary was it to mention this man by name? Not very. So why did Almond do it? Probably because he was still under the influence of that old youthful hurt, and currently under the influence of the soap box of personal essay, and he just couldn’t resist. Who wouldn’t have done the same?

I wonder if there’s a problem with this form: creative non-fiction. Because far too often discussions around essay and memoir writing devolve exactly like this – what is really true? Who is being implicated? And not about the work as art. Futhermore, it’s telling that despite all of Almond’s efforts to sweeten his messages, they still came out a little sour. Perhaps fiction is what gave Vonnegut the ability to portray that rough honesty without the sugar, a greater truth. Personally, I attended the reading because I enjoy Almond’s short stories. If he writes in fiction again I will be first in line to buy a copy.

cited: Almond, Steve. (Not that You Asked): Rants, Exploits, and Obsessions. New York: Random House, 2007.