Both of these stories are "about" a female narrator with her female friend. In the first story, the friend is dying, and in the second, the friend gives birth to a baby. These stories narrate events that happen all the time in the world around us, but Hempel's lush, surprising language and her selection of scenes and her shifts of timing transform them into specific occasions of not-knowing, or of looking at the mysterious underbelly that horrifies and attracts us both at once. Reading Amy Hempel feels like being three years old and learning that I can pick my own scab.
 |
| Photograph from Matt Bell's Blog |
The following comes from Amy Hempel's interview in The Paris Review:
INTERVIEWER
You’ve said that one of your commitments in writing is strict attention to the individual sentence.
HEMPEL
Yes. Writing conducted at the sentence level has always made perfect sense to me. Allan Gurganus put it very well. He was sitting on a panel on the novel with Stanley Elkin and several others, and there was all this talk about theories of novels and he said, There are those of us who are still loyal at the level of the sentence. That’s the great attraction and motivation. That’s what gets me in, writing or reading. Though it’s unlikely you’ll write something nobody has ever heard of, the way you have a chance to compete is in the way you say it. Now I’ve been writing for almost twenty years, and I still feel the same way. That is how I assemble stories—me and a hundred million other people—at the sentence level. Not by coming up with a sweeping story line.
INTERVIEWER
You’ve said you can’t bear to have a bad sentence in front of you.
HEMPEL
Yes. I still can’t. Makes me ill.
I admire Hempel's ambitions to not create new stories that have never been told, but that the language and voice you create is what brings originality to your writing. In both of these stories, we are given rather common circumstances (death, birth) but the plot is not the driving force. I can certainly understand how Hempel puts a lot of focus into each sentence as they all support one another equally and bring life to her words.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I felt like these stories were somewhat empty of emotion and I was not sure what to make of that. These relationships felt genuine which I admired, but I couldn't see anything that suggested any real emotion amongst the characters. I suppose what makes Hempel's writing truly unique is that the emotion is rather subtle but comes across vividly in the language. As we understand the actions and thoughts of the characters, the emotions speak for themselves which make them more honest and heartfelt.
Amy Hempel’s writing really stands out to me, and maybe it is because of that attention and loyalty “at the level of the sentence” (I love that). I think that’s what we as writers need to remember, how she says in the interview that that can sometimes be more important than figuring out a sweeping plot line. Because when it comes down to it they are both stories revolving around relatively common events, death of a loved one and birth, but it’s the way she weaves the story as an individual entity that hooks me. I think going into the stories, after reading her opinion about sentence, I read more slowly than usual because I wanted to appreciate the work she put into them. And it worked. I could feel how powerful yet important each sentence was to the story, and this is something I’ve been trying to keep in mind while doing my own writing, making every sentence count.
ReplyDeleteI just want to point out a few of my favorite lines too: “I see fear in her now, and am not going to try to talk her out of it. She is right to be afraid” or “I sleep with a glass of water on the nightstand so I can see by its level if the coastal earth is trembling or if the shaking is still me.” Seriously her language amazes me. And I want to talk about the dialogue between her characters too. It’s so distinct in itself, especially the dialogue between the two friends in the first story, when the dying one asks her friend to tell her useless things and so the friend pumps her with beautifully ‘useless’ facts like this in itself is its own life-saving serum.
While I really enjoyed Hempel's stories, by the time I finished them I was (pleasantly, of course) confused. I really enjoyed how she could take a subject that was very simple and has touched everyone's lives (death and birth) and made it transcendental. I think that is what Burrowway was describing when she said that to attain the universal, you need to strive to for the individual. Hempel didn't write about one any birth or death, she wrote about that particular birth and death.
ReplyDeleteIn her stories, I didn't really notice her sentences that much. I was really drawn into the narrative and the stream of consciousness, that the sentence flow seemed very natural, like I was looking into the mind of the narrator. Nothing in the story threw me out of it. I think, though, it's Hempel's attention to sentences that made it feel completely natural (sort of like the mark of a great dancer is that they make difficult steps that they've practiced for hundreds of hours look easy).
Reading Amy Hempel purely fascinated me. Her writing, like many of the other pieces we have read for class was so unique and gave me images in a different way of showing. I don’t know exactly how to explain that showing. In “Beg, Sl Tog, Inc, Cont, Rep,” I think she really played up her writing and showing ability. The story about the little girl wanting to bury a dead frog which ended up being alive, was something that really stood out to me, along with many other people I’m sure. Also the feeling of the setting she presents us with is also a big deal.
ReplyDelete“In the park, I saw a dog trying to eat his own shadow…” This made me laugh. Perhaps I really like the detail and descriptions rather than the setting. Either way I thought little things like this made the story even though at some points I was confused as to what they were referring to. In the second story we read, I don’t think we learn out narrator’s name. Actually we don’t learn the name in either story, so maybe Hempel is setting us up to become attached but not too attached!
I agree with Fran that I think this ties in very well with what Burroway says on writing about the universal. Hempel chose to write about two common themes that are often written about: birth and death. What made her stories stand out though and what made them successful is that she focused on one particular birth and one particular death, instead of writing about birth and death in general.
ReplyDeleteI could certainly tell that a lot of work had gone into each sentence, as none seemed out of place. They all complemented each other and made the reading of the stories very smooth. Nothing tripped me up at all. That's not to say I completely understood the story after the first reading, not at all. The stream of consciousness and the way the story ambles about made it difficult to follow, but they were very interesting to read and I enjoyed them a good deal.
What I thought was the most interesting thing about Amy Hempel’s writing is her use of language. Her choice in words and the scenes she creates are just so different, and add a new level of complexity to her stories’ simpler subjects of birth and death. At first, what seemed liked pointless, unnecessary scenes or information adds so much depth to the story. For example, the factual anecdotes thrown in not only provide interaction between the two friends and show the closeness of their relationship, but it also takes the reader away from the fact that one of them is dying. One line that I really liked from “In the Cemetery Where Al Jolson Is Buried” is on pg. 376, “What seems dangerous often is not—black snakes for example, or clear air turbulence. While things that just lie there, like this beach, are loaded with jeopardy.” What I liked about the line is that I could feel the narrator’s fear of death and concern for her friend without it being directly approached.
ReplyDeleteWhat I liked about “Beg, Sl Tog, Inc, Cont, Rep” was how Hempel incorporated the narrator’s obsessive compulsive disorder throughout the story. Like with the anecdotes in the previous story, I liked how the knitted distracted readers the way it did the narrator when her friend has the baby. It was definitely clear at times that she felt uncomfortable about her friend having a baby. At one part she states that she went out and bought knitting supplies right when the baby was born. In the chapter “Fictional Time,” Janet Burroway expresses the importance of good summary and scenes in conveying time. I think that both stories use summary as a way to keep the story going at a good pace, instead of bogging it down with details.
I really liked how Hempel characterizes people in her story “In the Cemetery Where Al Jolson is Buried.” For example on pg. 376 where the two doctors are compared, the Good and Bad doctor… “The Bad Doctor who checks the IV drip before saying good morning.” Even though Hempel does not give specific characteristics of the two doctors, but rather actions of the two doctors, I got a clear sense of how I was supposed to feel towards each. I also enjoyed how Hempel writes about universal subjects, yet she is still able to achieve originality in her writing. I loved the idea of the narrator helping her friend deal with death by providing her with trivial facts to distract her. The final paragraph where the narrator reflects on the story about the chimp was as Boyle describes it “heartbreaking.” I found Hempel’s sentences like “her wrinkled hands moving with animal grace” and “fluent now in the language of grief” to be poetic. What I enjoyed most about “Beg, SI Tog…” was Hempel’s descriptions. For example on pg. 382 “The sliding of needles was as rhythmic as water.” This line shows how the act of knitting is relaxing for the narrator, a compulsion, and a way of dealing with her OCD and the pain of giving up her child.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t realize the effort and focus that Amy Hempel puts into each of her sentences until after reading this blog, and now I keep reading lines as if they have multiple meanings. In “In the Cemetery Where Al Jolson is Buried,” I’m rereading the lines “Have you got something else?” and the visiting friend thinks, “Oh, yes. For her I would always have something else” (374). Here it seems like Hempel has buried a bigger story; yes, the friend has another joke to tell. But I think there is something deeper going on in that she also has some more comfort, more encouragement to give her ailing friend. Here is another example that is a little more obvious: The one friend is thinking about the dangerous sharks in the nearby ocean, and says to herself that “If she looked, she could see this, some of it, from her window. She would be the first to say how little it takes to make a thing all wrong” (378). Sure, something going wrong is a shark attack—but it is also simply finding out that one has a fatal disease.
ReplyDeleteIn “Beg, SL Tog, Inc, Cont, Rep,” I love how creative Hempel is with combining such a sad scenario with the repetition of sewing. The title as an acronym for “Begin, slip together, increase, continue, repeat” (387) also has a literal meaning and one that indicates what the woman must now do with her life. And finally the last lines in the story “stitch” this idea all together and demonstrate Hempel’s emphasis on each sentence when she writes “K tog rem st. Knit together remaining stitches. Cast off loosely” (389).
I praise Hempel on the structure of her sentences. While reading I could tell that each sentence was structured that way for a reason, as well as to stress meaning throughout the story. In "The Cemetery" The dialogue and skips around the idea of being ill much like the friend does. The sentences speak around the main subject which is death. To me the friend who is there for support is far more afraid for her ill friend than the actual friend is. They talk around it through stories and jokes."How about the hearing-ear dogs?" I say. "They're not going deaf, but they are getting very judgmental (376)." I liked how strong the sentences were. Each one was packed with an image.
ReplyDeleteIn "Beg, Sl, Tog, Inc, Cont, Rep" I again found myself dealing with another narrator that seemed to want to talk around the problems she was dealing with. Instead of having a friend distract her through stories, she knits and and literally weaves through her problems.
So, last night, after reading Hempel, I was left feeling confused and uneasy. Something about the way she wrote was strange to me. I didn't quite understand where she was coming from with the language. I decided to sleep on it and see how I felt. This morning, I realized that I'm supposed to feel uneasy. The way the stories are written is like snapshots; we only get glimpses of a person's life and the action that occurs. It's like, a raw look into fear and pain and grief. Sure, I still don't really understand the stories, but Hempel's attention to detail still appeals to me. "We look like good-guy outlaws. I keep touching the warm spot where my breath, thank God, comes out. She is used to hers..." This entire paragraph was sad for me. I felt like this throughout the entire story--a friend seeing another friend dying, and the friend never realizing it until her best friend leaves. It's a concept that's hard to grasp, and maybe that's why I have a hard time with it.
ReplyDeleteSame thing in "Beg, Sl, Tog, In, Cont, Rep." Once again, the detail is phenomenal, such as in the scenes where she describes her knitting. Once again, though, I find myself really struggling to understand the story. I love her dialogue in this, because it is very realistic. On page 388 "'Raining? That's what he said? The kid is a genius,' I told Dale Ann." I get this. It's a parent's way of coping. I felt the loss that the narrator felt, and it was like her friend was too involved in her own to realize the pain her friend was feeling. At the end of the day, though, I feel that I am not a real fan of the whole snapshot way of writing, and although I like Hempel's attempt to express these types of stories in a new way, I just can't get into it.
This was defiantly a different type of author then I have ever read before. While i read her two stories i couldn't help but notice the similarity in style between Ms. Hempel and Raymond Carver. I realized that the two of them do use a minimalist style.
ReplyDeleteThe first story that i read was "Be,Sl Tog, Inc, Cont, Rep". I thought that while reading this story it was interesting that she would use the metaphor of knitting to represent and abortion. it was both haunting and strange. This passage "Learning to knit was the obvious thing. The separation of tangled threads, the working-together of raveled ends into something tangible and whole—this mending was as confounding as the groom who drives into a stop sign on the way to his wedding. Because symptoms mean just what they are. What about the woman whose empty hand won’t close because she cannot grasp that her child is gone?" Was especially a good example of that in full effect. to show how in depth the two actions are intertwined was really amazing to me.
The other story "In the Cemetery" is also another fantastic example of minimalism at its finest. The theme that i too away was that death was inevitable and final. Too know that the main character is dying and too know what he is dying of drags you into the story even more.
After reading both of Hempel's works and the blog Catherine wrote on her, I came to the conclusion that her style is very much like Raymond Carver's "A Small, Good Thing" in many respects. Like the overview of Hempel said, "Where Al Jolson Is Buried" definitely "bears comparison to Raymond Carver in its success in dramatizing the death of an intimate(373)." Her use of words is carefully done and everything in the story has an underlying meaning that can be found if paid attention to closely. For example, the chimp in which she touches upon/has the friend discuss in "Where Al Joson Is Buried" has a lot of significance, especially at the end when she wrote about the mother chimp losing her baby and signing "Baby, come hug, Baby, come hug, fluent now in the language of grief (381)." That line itself was so emotional and I could not help, but feel sorry for not only the mother chimp that had lost her baby, but also the friend whose close friend had passed away. Hempel experesses emotion through these short and sweet entries and it was not until my second re-read of the story that I realized exactly what lines had more meaning than just taking up space or furthering a description. Just like Carver, every detail in which she includes in the short stories has a meaning and a purpose that is intended to touch the reader in a way that is very hard to do for writers (especially when writing about grief). Hempel does provide the reader with snapshots of what is going on and that definitely adds to the feeling of fear and sadness that the reader experiences. I know I, personally, felt sorry for the friend in her first story and could not help, but feel bad for them since they were losing the one person that actually helped them to confront their fears such as their fear of flying. After their friend died, you can tell they took a step back by becoming even more scared of earthquakes again and also becoming more afraid of flying. Their deepest fear was not being able to overcome their fears and I think that is something everyone has trouble with nowadays.
ReplyDeleteThese readings were about two very different things, birth and death, and yet they both managed to take on a very similar tone. Both stories are "very fluent in the language of grief." I respect that about Hempel's writing. It's very clear that she thinks about every single word she puts down on the paper. I even thought that before reading the interview. There's a really ideal mix of simple, short, choppy sentences and giant, complex ones. She uses them both to get across the message of the sentence and also to control the mood of the story. It conveys different things to explain a character's pain in a long diatribe, or if it's many, short, simple sentences.
ReplyDeleteHer characters, too, are well constructed. She does very little "telling" when it comes to showing us the character of her characters. I'm thinking specifically of the narrator in the knitting one. Almost all we know about her is shown through her reactions to other people and other people's reactions toward her. Knitting is also a big part of her character, and the story too, as made evident by the title. Speaking of the title, I thought it was really neat how the title starts out as this nonsensical thing (unless the reader is way in to knitting) and becomes a meaningful title as the story progresses. We've talked about how keeping things hidden from the reader can have the effect of making them feel tricked, but I think in this case the moment of the "reveal" left me feeling as though I had figured something out.