I’ve been a big fan of Doug Dorst’s fiction for years, and I’m thrilled that he will be our guest faculty member in fiction at the Crazyhorse Writers Conference, March 15-18, here in beautiful Charleston.
Dorst is the author of the highly-acclaimed novel, Alive in Necropolis, which was honored as San Francisco’s 2009 One City One Book selection, winner of the 2009 Emperor Norton Award, runner up for the 2009 PEN/Hemingway, Shirley Jackson and IAFA/Crawford Awards, a New York Times Book Review Editors’ Choice, and one of Amazon.com’s Best Books of 2008. His most recent book is the short story collection, The Surf Guru, which was longlisted for the Frank O’Connor International Short Story Award.
Dorst is one of the few writers I know who can write in both traditional and experimental forms without sacrificing precision, clarity, or emotion. The stories in The Surf Guru, for example, range from the buttoned-down realism of “Vikings” (one of my favorites) to the post-modern satire of “Splitters,” (also a favorite) which blends text and images, divides point of view between three speakers, and both savages and pays a strange homage to academic writing, resulting in one of the funniest stories I’ve ever read, period. How does Dorst move from one style to the other? How does he choose between traditional forms and those a bit off the beaten path?
In a recent interview in The Rumpus, Dorst explained his process this way:
Bill: How did you decide to play around with some stories and the method of delivery as opposed to the ones you told in a more straightforward way?
Doug Dorst: I try to let the material dictate what form the story wants to be in. “Dinaburg’s Cake,” for example, felt like it wanted to be very straightforward, with a very slow build. “Gachet” had the “various portraits” idea built into it. (There are in fact two of them in real life.)
Bill: Do you ever find yourself second-guessing that impulse, and reworking straightforward prose into something more experimental? Vice-versa?
Doug Dorst: Sometimes, although usually if it doesn’t work the way I originally think of it, it doesn’t end up working well. (While I can think of times I went from more-experimental to straighter, I can’t recall any that went in the other direction.)
I admire Dorst’s approach, letting the material dictate the form, and not vice versa. I think that’s a mistake many young fiction writers make, deciding that a story will be “straightforward” or “experimental” before the writer has wrestled with the material, before the writer senses what’s interesting and urgent about it, and begins to see what’s the best way to tell that particular story. Let the story instruct you, Dorst seems to say, not the other way around. Trust the story. Good advice.
Dorst is also honest about his writing process, admits he’s never been able to stick to a strict writing schedule, and usually has to overcome doubt and procrastination before he can begin writing. From the same interview, here he is describing his writing process:
Nancy Lili: Because your style is so diverse — and yes, you like to have fun (which shows and makes it fun for the reader, too) — do you have any special writing warm-ups or techniques?
Doug Dorst: Yes. My warm-up technique appears to be to waste several hours on the web, waste several more telling myself I’m a fraud, and finally, if I’m lucky, telling myself, oh, hell, just type some words already.
Just type some words already. Yes, that’s the writer’s true call to arms, as unromantic as it is. I admire Dorst’s honesty, candor, and humor. I’m looking forward to hearing more about his writing process during his craft talk on Saturday, March 17, at the Crazyhorse Writers Conference. I hope many of you will join us!