It’s no secret that I have a penchant for history. Whether it is learning about
the trials and tribulations of Louis XIV or the brave soldiers from the
American Civil War, there’s something quite fascinating about discovering
little-known facts from the past. Take Henry David Thoreau, for example. Did
you know that he accidentally set fire to three hundred acres of woods before
building his cabin on the nearby Walden Pond? No, I didn’t either! But this
month’s Jen’s Jewels, John Pipkin, most
certainly did!
In his debut novel entitled WOODSBURNER, he takes this real-life incident and spins it into a
gripping tale of four extraordinary men whose lives are forever changed by this
catastrophic event. Through his vivid depiction of these mystifying characters,
he takes the reader on a riveting journey with many surprising twist and turns.
Without a doubt, this novel raises historical fiction to an all new level.
As part of this interview, Doubleday Books has generously donated five
copies for you, my lucky readers, to win. So, don’t forget to look for the
trivia question at the end. And as always, thanks for making Jen’s Jewels a part of
reading adventure.
Jen: It’s quite refreshing to speak with a debut novelist
because you
are somewhat of a mystery to us. Quite often, an author’s background helps fill
in the gaps in terms of why you chose to pursue a certain genre. So, please
share with us a brief overview of your educational and professional background
prior to becoming a novelist.
John: Since the summer of 2000, my wife and I have called Austin,
Texas "home," but I am originally from back east—born and raised in Baltimore,
Maryland. As an undergraduate, I attended Washington and Lee University in
Virginia and then went to UNC-Chapel Hill for my M.A. in English, before moving
out to Houston to earn my Ph.D. in British Literature from Rice University.
(For some reason I gradually migrated southward during my college years.) My
first job after graduate school was teaching English at Saint Louis University.
Later I worked for several years as an assistant professor of Rhetoric and
Humanities at Boston University, before moving back to Texas, where I worked
for a time as a freelance editor for Holt, Rinehart & Winston, and then as
a standardized test developer for Pearson Educational Measurement, and most
recently as the Executive Director of the Writers’ League of Texas, which is a
non-profit, literary arts organization. I have been writing fiction steadily
since 1995, but WOODSBURNER is my first novel and my first published piece of
fiction. All of my jobs have been related in some way to education, publishing,
and the literary arts, so I think they all contributed in their own way to my
writing career.
Jen: What was the driving force that led you to a career in publishing?
And also, how would you best describe yourself as a writer?
John: You know, I have always wanted to be a writer, but I guess I took
a fairly circuitous route to get to where I am now. I can’t pinpoint the exact
moment or motive in my childhood that led me to pursue writing, but I can
identify the main reason that I returned to the idea of being a writer as an
adult. In my academic career I did a great deal of archival research, and what
I often found most intriguing were the coincidences and historical concurrences
that seemed somehow connected in ways that are not empirically verifiable.
Fiction, especially historical fiction, gave me the opportunity to speculate,
to make intuitive leaps between events and people. How would I describe myself
as a writer? I guess I would say that I am drawn first to idea. Different
writers begin at different places. I know some writers who first begin with a
character, or a particular point of conflict, or a setting, or a historical
event. I think I tend to be drawn toward ideas first: a message or theme or
tone that I want to convey to the reader. The writing process is largely the
development of all of the other elements necessary to communicate the larger
idea to the reader. I’m a pretty disciplined writer; in fact, I often feel more
like a mechanic or an engineer than an “artist.” I take writing very seriously
(even if what I am writing at the time happens to be comic) and I trust in the
transformative power in words. I truly believe that people are rendered better
versions of themselves through the act of reading.
Jen: As my readers know, my column welcomes most genres, however, this
month’s selection took me way out of my comfort zone. (I’m happy to report that
it was a fascinating educational journey for me. I highly recommend the book!)
In your first release, WOODSBURNER, you masterfully take a real- life historical
incident and turn it into a fictional story. Please describe its metamorphosis.
How did you arrive at the premise? And, why did choose to write about Henry
David Thoreau?
John: In the summer of 2003, I had no intention of writing a novel about
Henry David Thoreau. But around that time that I picked up the July 2003 issue
of Harper’s and came across a brief line in the Harper’s Index:
Estimated acres of forest Henry David Thoreau burned down in 1844 trying to
cook fish he had caught for dinner: 300.
I have always been interested in Thoreau, and in early-nineteenth-century
American literature and philosophy in general, but I was not aware of this
incident. The fire is not a secret, and it is mentioned in all of the major
Thoreau biographies, but no one, as far as I can tell, has ever really
considered what impact this fire had on Thoreau’s development as a philosopher
and a naturalist. At first, I was simply attracted by the irony that one of
America’s iconic environmentalists might have been driven—at least in part—by
his remorse over having caused the destruction of the very thing he so loved.
But the details surrounding the event are even more intriguing. The forest fire
takes place at a time in Thoreau’s life when his own future was uncertain: he
had not yet written any of the great works for which he would be remembered;
his various attempts at teaching and tutoring had ended in disappointment, and
he had not yet built his famous cabin at Walden Pond. In 1844, Thoreau was a
relatively unknown pencil maker with great intellectual promise (according to
his close friends) but little to show for it. Could it be possible that an
accidental forest fire—one that burned for only a single day—may have helped
changed the landscape of American literary history?
The more I researched, the more I began to feel that America was also at a
crossroads in the period between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.
America was still searching for its identity and had not yet developed its own
literature or art or philosophy. It is a fertile, exciting, and transformative
period in American history, and I eventually decided that I wanted WOODSBURNER to deal with
the promises of the New World, the seemingly unlimited resources of early
America, and the sense of possibility and uncertainty present in a young
country that—for all its potential—could not yet lay claim to a cultural or
intellectual tradition of its own.
Jen: Please walk us through the writing process. Did you outline first?
Did you have a vision as to where you wanted the story to lead you or did it
take on a life of its own?
John: I always outline, repeatedly and obsessively. I don’t always stick
to the outline, but it’s there for reference if I start to wander too far off
track. There are four interwoven plots in WOODSBURNER, as well as a
good deal of back-story, so I had to keep the plot lines organized. Each
character has his or her own history and his or her own story of what happens
on the day of the fire. I wrote each of the four stories individually, from
start to finish. Then I went back and broke the stories apart and wove them
together. I originally kept all of the chapters relatively short so that I
could link events in each character’s story to the overall structure of the
novel. I kept track of the various stories on a chart and on index cards, so
that I could make sure the timelines matched properly. My office at home was
not pretty sight.
Jen: Approximately how much research went into the writing of this book?
Besides Henry, did any of the other characters you mention in the novel truly
exist?
John: I did quite a bit of research into Thoreau’s life, and, of course,
I researched life in 19th-century America. For the most part, I tried to rely
on Thoreau’s own writings for the main source of information about his life and
the world of 1844. But, to be honest, I also tried very hard to limit my
research, because WOODSBURNER is—first and foremost—a work of fiction, not a
biography or a history of the period. I didn’t want to fall into the trap of
including historical facts for their own sake. I only allowed myself enough
research to support the fictional stories I created. I wanted to make sure, to
the best of my ability, that every action and thought and spoken word in WOODSBURNER is
historically plausible. There is little documentation of what exactly happened
on the day of the fire, so I felt relatively unconstrained as far as what I
could imagine actually happened. But I made sure that nothing I imagined in the
book contradicts known facts.
Thoreau is the only real-life character in WOODSBURNER, and I limited
my research to what happened up until 1844, because I wanted to avoid
attributing thoughts or details from his later life to his earlier period. The
other main characters of the novel are completely fictional, although there are
a few references to other historical figures (such as Emerson, and the
landowners Thoreau encounters in the woods). The other main characters are not
based on any real people and they are not composites of historical figures. I
wanted to create characters representative of different aspects of American
society at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Jen: Roughly how long did it take to complete WOODSBURNER? What was the
most challenging part of the entire process? The most rewarding?
John: I began writing the book in November 2003, one week before my son
was born. In terms of the process itself, one of the most challenging parts of
the project was simply finding time to write with a full-time job and a
newborn. I woke at 5:00am every morning and wrote until 8:00am before heading
off to work. I did this for three years, and I completely re-wrote the
manuscript three times. As far as the content is concerned, the most
challenging part was keeping myself focused on the story when there was always
a temptation to digress into quirky anecdotes about little historical oddities
of the time. After I had rewritten the book a second time, I put it aside for
three months and then came back to it. When I reread it, I found passages that
I had completely forgotten I had written—when I read them they felt like been
written by someone else—and that was probably the most satisfying experience of
the whole process.
Jen: In the novel, you chose to highlight four very different men. Let’s
talk about each one and how his persona contributed to the execution of the
plot. As you mentioned, the catalyst of the story is the fire accidentally set
by Henry. I was surprised as to Henry’s blasé attitude towards the impact of
his actions. Would you agree with my observation? And if so, why did you choose
to portray him in this way? And if not, what were your intentions?
John: Thoreau’s character is based very closely upon the content and
tone of his journal entries for 1837 to 1844 (including his sole account of the
fire in 1850). I tried to avoid including any information or interpretations
that applied to Henry’s life post-1884, which was difficult, since most of the
what he is remembered for are writings and events that came after the fire. I
don’t think that Thoreau’s attitude toward the fire is blasé, but I definitely
tried to make his perspective appear vexed and ambivalent. I truly believe that
Thoreau felt guilty and that the defensive (sometimes indignant) tone in his
journal entry for 1850, in which he tries to rationalize away his guilt, is
indicative of how deeply he felt responsible for what he had done. At the same
time, I felt that it would be inaccurate to depict him as overtly penitent
since this would contradict the way he presents himself through his own
writings. My intention was to portray Thoreau’s character with a certain
ambiguity so that readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not
the impact of the fire was significant enough to alter the course of his life.
Despite all of the writings that Thoreau has left us, Thoreau the man is still
somewhat enigmatic, the subject of much debate and speculation, and I didn’t
want to do anything to alter that character.
Jen: On page 173 you write, “After twenty-six years, Henry has
accomplished little, and the burden of his empty history weighs heavily on
him.” Is this a true portrayal of Henry David Thoreau? Did he spend the first
part of his life in state of purposelessness?
John: Well, yes, I believe that this is an accurate portrayal of
Thoreau’s indecisiveness and his frustrated ambitions in the spring of 1844.
But I probably wouldn’t go so far as to say that Thoreau spent the first part
of his life in a state of purposelessness. By 1844, he had already been writing
for several years. He had already begun his journal and was recording
observations about nature that would figure centrally in his later works. He
had already run his own school with his brother John for three years, and for a
time he had helped edit the Transcendentalist magazine, The Dial. He had also
lived in New York for several months in 1843, trying to break into the
publishing world, but he could not find anyone willing to publish his writings.
At the time of the fire, Thoreau he had not yet succeeded at any of the
ambitions for which he is now well known. In fact, at this time Thoreau himself
had begun to worry if he was ever to achieve any of his literary goals.
Ironically, in the spring of 1844, the one thing at which Thoreau appears to
have worked the hardest and enjoyed the greatest success is something that has
been forgotten altogether: he helped his father make what were then regarded as
the best pencils in America. Thoreau invented and refined several devices for
manufacturing of pencils and his innovations contributed substantially to the
financial success of the family business. I can’t help but wonder: if it
weren’t for the fire, would Thoreau be known today as a pencil maker instead of
our first great environmentalist?
Jen: The second man in the story is Oddmund Hus. What an interesting
character! First of all, what is the significance of his dead infant tooth?
Does its existence have some deeper meaning? Or does it simply personify his
infantile demeanor?
John: Thanks. I have been simply overwhelmed by the powerful way that
readers have responded to Oddmund’s character. The dead tooth! Many readers
have asked about that. It does hold an important significance in the story, but
I’d rather not assign it a specific symbolic meaning, since I want to give
readers the freedom to consider the meaning for themselves. But I will confess
that I am fairly obsessed with teeth and, for that matter, all things dental.
In the 21st century, in America especially, we place such a high emphasis on
perfect, straight, unnaturally white teeth, and yet, even today, teeth can
still be a source of great pain. In no other time in human history have smiles
looked anything like what we regularly see today on television and in the
movies. But when we’re trying to picture what people looked like in the
nineteenth century, I think we seldom consider what people’s teeth looked like,
or at least we don’t think about it until after we’ve thought about dress,
hairstyles, etc. Even less consideration is given to the discomfort that people
must have regularly experienced a few generations ago. Many people in Thoreau’s
time lost teeth at an early age. Thoreau himself needed to have all of his
teeth pulled at thirty-four! Much has been said about the eyes being windows to
the soul, but I think that the way a person smiles is just as revealing. Even
today, the appearance of a person’s teeth often subtly influences the way they
are judged by others.
Jen: Secondly, his attraction to Emma Woburn is painstakingly sorrowful.
What makes Emma such a femme fatale in his eyes?
John: The love story between Oddmund and Emma really occupies the heart
of the novel. I wanted to create a hero who was filled with self-doubt and
wholly unaware of his own strength. Oddmund is a man who is frightened by his
own urges and spends much of his life denying and ignoring his desires. But for
Emma overpowers his own resistance to himself. I think Odd sees a kindred
spirit in Emma, someone who, like him, arrived in the New World alone, forced
to find her own way. Odd admires her for this strength.
Jen: In the book you write, “Odd had sought only to remove himself from
the paths of other people, but he had not expected that he would find in the
woods companionship of a different sort.”(pg.138)
In what way has society scorn him so deeply that he feels that his only saving
grace is a life of solitude? Is this a self-imposed sentence?
John: Yes, his solitude is self-imposed, and, in fact, I think that most
of the scorn he feels is actually the product of his own imagination. He views
himself much more harshly than do any of the other characters. He is left
abandoned and alone in the New World, and he carries with him a terrible family
secret, but it is his own diminished sense of self-worth that leads him to
believe that the world has rejected him. In America, after all, he is free to
remake himself into anything he wants, but he has to realize this potential for
himself first, and then, of course, he needs to finds the motivation to
transform himself.
Jen: Let’s move on to the ambitious bookseller named Eliot Calvert. Why
is he so quick to give up his freedom and marry Margaret Mary Mahoney even
though her father comes along with the package? Has he taken on more than he
bargained for? Why or why not?
John: Eliot is not only an ambitious artist; he is socially and
financially ambitious as well. These conflicting desires play themselves out
internally, and though Eliot tends to blames others for his lack of artistic
success or his overwhelming financial responsibilities, he alone is responsible
for the man he has become. He gives up his freedom and marries Margaret Mahoney
because, although he clings to romantic notions of art, he cannot ignore his
own hunger for material success.
Jen: Without giving too much away, the sale of some rather
unconventional items in his store seemed to illicit a much deeper meaning. Yes,
the extra income was needed, but also I felt as if he were striking back at
Margaret’s father. Would it be fair to say that his resentment towards both of
them played a role in the way he conducted his entire life?
John: Eliot, I think, is essentially striking back at himself throughout
the book. To cite a cliché, he is his own worst enemy, though he probably
doesn’t see it this way. Although he resents Margaret and her father for
distracting him from his art and burdening him with the responsibilities of
maintaining a business and a big house, the truth is that he actually resents
himself for embracing the world that he wants to think he is somehow above.
Eliot’s thwarted ambitions are his own fault, although he tries repeatedly to
blame them on others.
Jen: Finally, the villain of the story, if you will, is Caleb Ephraim
Dowdy. In my opinion, he is the minister without faith. What has driven this
lost soul to such a self-destructive journey of being?
John: The doubts that Caleb Dowdy feels are really some of the most
basic human doubts and fears. But because he refuses to face them directly,
openly and honestly, they fester within him. He is so desperate to believe that
his religious views are correct, that he is willing to do some truly terrible
things, just to prove himself right. He clings so tightly to dogma to help him
resolve the contradictions that he sees in the world, that his beliefs
ultimately push him away from the world.
Jen: The scene with the man on the verge of being hung was chilling.
Without giving too much away, do you think Caleb came to regret his decision?
Why or why not?
John: That’s a great question. Here again, I don’t want to preclude
readers from drawing their own conclusions, but I do think that it is important
to consider whether Caleb regrets his decision because he realizes it was
morally wrong, or because he realizes that the consequences of his decision,
once he learns the truth, undermine his rigid system of beliefs.
Jen: Looking back on the entire process, how have you grown as a writer?
John: I think the most important thing that I have learned about writing
is actually something incredibly obvious that I probably should have known
before I started, and that is that the most important elements of any story are
the characters. Of course, it is important that all elements of a story be well-
constructed, but characters are what really draw a reader in, elicit sympathy
and understanding, and it is through the characters that readers truly connect
to the themes and ideas in the book.
Jen: Please tell us about your promotional plans for WOODSBURNER. Do you have a
website? Will you be participating in author phone chats? And if so, how would
my readers go about arranging one? Will you be on a book signing tour?
John: I will be on tour in May and June, and all of those dates will be
posted on my website: www.johnpipkin.com. Some highlights: the official book
launch will be at BookPeople in Austin on May 7, and I will also be at the
Concord Bookshop in Concord, MA on May 17, and at the Ivy Bookshop in Baltimore
on June 29. I will be scheduling phone chats with book clubs during the summer,
and the best way for a book club to schedule one would be to contact me via my
website.
Jen: Thank you so much for sharing WOODSBURNER with my
readers. I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you and wish only the best in your
career.
John: Thank you for your insightful questions. I’ve really enjoyed
discussing them.
I hope you have enjoyed my interview with John. Please stop by your favorite
bookstore or local library branch and pick up a copy today. Better yet, would
you like to win one? Answer the following trivia question correctly and be one
of five winners.
Name the
villain in WOODSBURNER.
Next month, I will be bringing to you my interview with the authors of SOMEDAY YOU’LL THANK ME FOR
THIS…The Official Southern Ladies’ Guide to Being a "Perfect" Mother. You
won’t want to miss it.
Until next time...Jen
When a twist of fate landed Jennifer at the "Reading with Ripa" roundtable
discussion with Kelly Ripa and Meg Cabot, she knew that her career as a French
teacher would essentially be over. Instead, she figured out a clever way to
combine her love for reading and writing and "voilà" She became a book reviewer
and columnist with www.freshfiction.com. On the sidelines, her parents secretly
hoped that her French degree from Vanderbilt would one day come in handy and
Jennifer is happy to report that the phrases ‘Je ne sais pas' and ‘C'est
incroyable!' have been quite useful when reviewing certain selections! As is
typical in her whirlwind life, one thing led to another and soon she found
herself facilitating a popular moms' book club and writing a column she cleverly
named Jen's Jewels. (Jewelry is one of her many addictions, as is the color pink
and Lilly Pulitzer, which when you think about it, would probably make for a
good story! Hint! Hint! ) To keep herself away from her favorite retailer, Ann
Taylor, she serves on the Board of Trustees of the Harford County Public Library
in Maryland. As a national trainer for The Arthritis Foundation's Aquatic and
Land Exercise Classes, she is an advocate for those like herself who suffer from
arthritis, the nation's #1 cause of disability. When asked how she manages to do
all of these things and actually get some sleep at night, she simply replied,
"It's just Par for the Course." Hmm! Now where have we heard that before?
No comments posted.