In a world where globalization runs rampant and writers are commonly identified by their nationality, we often don't consider American writers as such because they're so familiar to us. Richard Ford is one of the few exceptions, someone who is clearly American in many aspects (even though he claims that there is no difference between nationalities in writing). As Shelia Kohler says, his stories feel distinctly American. Like George Saunders, Ford discusses the idea of the American dream, but it's a different kind of American dream. Rather than the quiet desperation of the middle class, it's the clawing reach of the lower class, the ones not often written about.
Take "Rock Springs." Earl (a typically American name) spends the whole story trying to find something better, seeing it everywhere he goes, but it's still out of reach. The story is a classic example of what the American dream can be: nice cars, women, and exotic animals. But everything falls flat, empty.
Stories that reflect the American dream - and Americaness - reflect our desires and our problems. So if we look at Richard Ford as a mirror for America, what does it show? "Communist" and "Sweethearts" show the difficulty of relationships, popular in the dirty realism movement. The attempt and failure to connect with others, even those closest to us. The struggle of wanting what you can't have and knowing that you'll never have it.
What other elements of classic "American" life do these stories reflect? How are they "American?"
Take "Rock Springs." Earl (a typically American name) spends the whole story trying to find something better, seeing it everywhere he goes, but it's still out of reach. The story is a classic example of what the American dream can be: nice cars, women, and exotic animals. But everything falls flat, empty.
Stories that reflect the American dream - and Americaness - reflect our desires and our problems. So if we look at Richard Ford as a mirror for America, what does it show? "Communist" and "Sweethearts" show the difficulty of relationships, popular in the dirty realism movement. The attempt and failure to connect with others, even those closest to us. The struggle of wanting what you can't have and knowing that you'll never have it.
What other elements of classic "American" life do these stories reflect? How are they "American?"
Despite what Ford himself has said about nationalities in writing, I think nationalities can come through very obviously in writing and Ford's own writing is a clear example of that. The "ugliness" of America shines through in all of his stories even if it doesn't seem like a focus of the story or a problem to the plots and characters. The issues Ford's protagonists face are all very American problems: the tragedies of America through class differences and individuality. Unlike other countries and nationalities, America likes to pride itself with being filled with opportunity while it seems as though it's quite far from true because these characters get nowhere even when they think they "get it." The American Dream is actually emptiness and I believe that's what Ford, despite his belief that he doesn't show his nationality in his writing, is telling his readers. The characters aren't happy and their lives come across as rather meaningless. They want things, but achieving those things or not, they are still stuck and have an empty feeling. All glitz and no glory.
ReplyDeleteI like it when writers work with the concept of the American Dream. George Saunders does it well. Not to be a downer, but I don’t think Richard Ford does it well at all. It’s not so much that he can’t work with the theme of the American Dream so much as he can’t write very well in general. The dialogue is some of the most unnatural that I’ve read in short stories. He particularly has trouble including a child’s dialogue without its sounding highly misplaced, like he was struggling to get that “whimsy” children are supposed to have. It tends to result in random comments that don’t tie in and that, more importantly, the other characters don’t respond to in a way that makes sense. As for his details, his setting description is very basic. This can be pleasant, but it tends to be so simplified that no real atmosphere or mood can be drawn from it—except, of course, for the lack of one. My absolute pet peeve about his writing is his tendency to describe facial expressions without actually telling us what the face looks like: “…a look that seemed to want truth,” “…Edna was watching me, not in a hateful way or a loving way, just in a way that seemed to say she didn’t understand something and was going to ask me about it,” “Edna…smiled at me like she wanted me to hug her,” “my mother…stared at me in a way to make you think she thought something was being put over on her and she didn’t like you for it.” I can keep going. This ties in with something else that frustrates me, which is that his narrators pretty much lack entirely in personality, yet at the same time they have this infinite wisdom: they can almost always magically tell what other people are thinking and feeling, but we are never given the evidence ourselves to understand. “…I knew she was mad at him and I didn’t blame her…” “I knew he was mad but that he was not mad at me…I knew he wanted to say that and a hundred things more then,” “He looked at her then, and I know he wanted to say something more to her, to tell her that he hated her or that he loved her or wanted to kill her or that he was sorry. But he couldn’t come to the words for that…That was his character, and it is the character of many people.” (On the occasions that he does attempt to describe people’s behavior or expressions with adjectives, the likelihood is that the word will be either “wild” or “sweet.”) Ford doesn’t even make an attempt at being subtle, and he never gives his readers a chance to understand things on their own. It’s a way of talking down to the reader, in my opinion. And the philosophy that he shovels into his narrator’s monologues is more often than not heavy-handed and lazy; after a mild attempt to communicate a theme or idea through an actual story, he just lays it all out for us so he doesn’t have to continue.
ReplyDeleteThere is most definitely an "American" voice in Ford's work, though I couldn't put my finger on how it was American for a while.
ReplyDeleteThe ruggedness of Americanism is certainty present here. I imagine foreigners often picture Americans as rough and ready cowboys or rough and ready army rangers or just rough and ready in attitude. That is present in both Rock Springs and Communist: the pseudo-family stealing a car to outrun the police in the former and a worn-around the edges hunter in the latter. As a matter of fact, the hunter seems to be an extreme of this ideal: so rough and ready that he has lost the ability to love or care for anyone. And what notions he does have of those feelings are grossly twisted. After all, he thinks the only way he can treat something as beautiful as geese is to shoot them.
I'm surprised that Virginia didn't bring up the idea of James Cagney, Angels with Dirty Faces, or some other gangster-style blockbuster for Rock Springs. Looking back at the story, it's almost like a gangster film without the glitz. The key to this connection is that, despite the fact Earl and/or Cagney's character commit crimes, we not only feel for them, but also root for them too. We admire them as survivors that have pitted themselves against the system and are winning. Kind of like how the American dream favors the underdog. We admire Earl's ability to think ahead and empathize with his blight.
As for the other story Communist, you know right from the start there is going to be a sinister turn in the story. (Fear of Communism: another grand American tradition!) However, the story barely touches upon the idea of Communism, it is only used as a foil to paint the lead character as... you guessed it... rough and ready. In this case, ready to kill anyone who tries to rough him up.
Still not sure how Communism factors into the story though. We'll have to discuss this tomorrow.
I was hoping I wouldn't come to this, but, like Audrey (though I don’t have as many quotes to draw upon and am not up to combing through these stories again to find any more than the one I already have), I don't feel that Ford does anything right. Among other things too petty to list, or that Audrey has already listed more skillfully, I don't like the way he puts words together (even the first three words of "Rock Springs," "Edna and I" are rather awkward), or the overdone lowdown-American tone of his stories, and I found the narrators' insights into life to be not only uncalled-for to the point of being insulting, from my perspective as a reader who's at least attempting to be attentive, but also shallow. What’s more, I’m tired of writers taking shots at the American Dream, personally, because the flaws of it are certainly well enough exposed at this point, and I’m guessing it was the same when Ford began, so telling a story about it without at least a Saundersian creativity (as much as I don’t think Saunders reads well on the page relative to his live readings, I grant him his imagination) leaves me cold. It could be that some parts of this post are unfair to him coming from only one reading, but as I found many substantial things that I didn't enjoy the first time I don’t see what it would avail me to try again.
ReplyDeleteEven though I enjoyed reading these stories, there was also a part of me that wished it wasn't as American as it was. The Americanisms came out almost too clearly for my taste in all of these stories. I like a story where I can work a little to get the meaning out of the story, and with Ford's stories I felt like it was too much in my face from the start, and I didn't have to work for it. There were moments where I was like: "finally, something's going to happen that I'm going to have to work for", but then Ford would come right out and say what he meant, and my hope for subtlety was dashed away. It wasn't a physical cringe when this happened, it was more of a mental cringe, along the lines of: "why is Ford doing this to me again? I've had enough." In these moments, I came close to giving up on Ford letting me work for understanding the story, but then something would spark my interest, and bring that hope alive again.
ReplyDeleteThere were moments where I wasn't a fan of how he ordered his words. It helped the story, it just wasn't in the order I would've put them in if I were Ford, and if I were his editor, I would suggest flipping some of the wording around. I wanted to like Ford more than I did, but I don't think there's anything more that I could've done to like Ford as much as some of the other authors we've read.
As Sarah-Jane said in the opening blog post, Richard Ford brings in the idea of the American Dream on a different level than George Saunders. I feel like it is not just because he has a focus on a different socio-economic class, but because he builds these characters that are unaware of how far reaching their desires are. Both “Sweethearts” and “Rock Springs” has characters that have this desperation to get a leg up in life. And rather than trying to conform to social norms, such as the narrator in Saunders’ “The Semplica Girl Diaries,” Ford’s characters break those norms, break laws and try to outrun them in an attempt to find the freedom of the American Dream. To me, this makes Ford’s character’s seem more tragic. They have the mentality of if I just take one more step I might have a chance of making it, I might be able to escape to something better. I see this is most in “Rock Springs,” mainly because it is the narrator who takes the reader through his plan of escape. If Earl can just make it to Florida, everything will not necessarily be solved, but the current situation of avoiding arrest will be behind him. This is where I see the difference between Saunders’ American Dream and Ford’s. Ford creates this individual hope and strife within his characters, bringing the idea of the American dream to the character’s level instead of the readers. To clarify, Ford’s aim doesn’t seem to be to teach the reader, but rather to show his characters’ stories, make those characters relatable, and possibly make the lower class seem more accessible in literature.
ReplyDeleteI see this intention as an element to American culture and American literature. Diversity is a buzzword in American culture, and though Ford seems to work with mainly Caucasian characters, he brings to light in a nonchalant manner the struggle these characters have. In “Rock Springs” Earl thinks nothing of his check fraud other than that he has to get out of town before going to prison. He doesn’t feel like he is in the wrong, but rather that he has to avoid the people who tell him his methods are wrong. I do not often come across a story in which the main character has the usually negative traits such as thief. The way Ford presents his characters helps the reader understand why the characters do what they do. The characters in a way hold true to their class stereotypes—doing anything to get by, but Ford brings the reader in and shows these characters in a more neutral light, revealing American culture in ways other literature does not always consider.
I think that Richard Ford wrote a lot about family. The American Dream is a mom, a dad, and two point five children, but that never happens in Ford’s stories. He always discusses broken families that discuss their separation from the ideal family. In “Sweethearts,” Bobby still has feelings for Arlene. She is now involved with Russ and his daughter. In “Rock Springs,” Edna is also playing the role of a step-mother, a role she does not want to play. In “Communist,” Les has lost his father and is not sure if he wants Glen in his life with his mother or not. In Ford’s introduction it said that he had a stable family and was able to write about other kinds of families by comparing it to his own. The typical American family does not exist anymore, as families come in all shapes and sizes. I think Ford addresses the “American” family even if none of his characters have it exactly. Each one tries to make the most out of their situation. In “Rock Springs” as Earl is picking out a new car for them he finds the one he would mostly likely have, one with luggage on top and in the trunk, toys in the back, and a cat. He found the car and the life he would have if his life were different, if he was not running from the law. Edna resents her role with Earl’s daughter, but we see Arlene embracing it. I think Ford wanted to show that the “American Dream” family was not perfect, that any family structure was okay as long as the people cared for each other. In “Sweethearts” they have the most stable family, because in the other stories Edna does not want to be there and Glen often is not there. I think that Ford wanted to look at the changing structure of the American family.
ReplyDeleteafter reading this blog post and the introduction to Ford in 3x33, I began reading these stories with the idea of there be no difference between nationalities in writing. I wouldn't say there is no difference in nationalities, but I would perhaps say that human struggle is a shared struggle, and despite cultural difference, the issues an American experiences at the core aren't very different from those of a person anywhere else in the world. I think of Bobby in "Sweethearts," and how sure, any man anywhere can experience the fear that Bobby feels, the kind of fear that kicks in and reveals the animalistic side of a person, and yet Ford made this man distinctively American, and how living in a country that so fervently believes in the idea of the American dream, of having a family and owning a home, etc., defines the struggles of the Bobby and the other characters in Ford's stories. It isn't just a question of fear -- the fear of going to jail, of what happens after -- but also a weirdly practical fear of what becomes of a man who is failing at living the life an American is supposed to live. Especially in a gritty, rugged environment where your success may be linked to your toughness, your manliness. I think of how Bobby breaks down in the kitchen, how the surveillance camera is watching him (or at least appears to be watching him) as if he's about to commit another crime. There is a better way to articulate what I want to say about these stories, but I'm not sure that I've found the words yet.
ReplyDeleteFord is not a writer who prioritizes language in a way that many others do -- his craft is in the telling of a story that is both direct and just a little elusive. He operates within "Americanness" in a way that is both obvious but also well-observed. He's perhaps pulling the curtain aside to reveal the things about the roughness of our culture that we already seem to know but perhaps don't pay attention to.
I would agree with Julia that one of the elements that permeates Ford’s writing is the idea that certain struggles, including family as she mentioned, are somewhat universal, and exist in this idea of the American Dream across notions of nationalities. I think partly what intrigued me so fully about Ford was the way that he approached the idea of Americanism from a way different than most of his peers. Typically, I feel as though this idea of American Dream and Americanism is approached from a private level, where the characters have a hidden depth that encapsulates the idea that is slowly unfurled to the reader. Ford felt as though he reversed that notion, publicizing the flaws of his characters and using that element to explore the idea of Americanness, both from the perspective of the more “down and out American” (Bobby and Earl, both on the run or needing to be) to say something about the experience of the collective. In a way, Bobby explored overtly the idea that people are trapped, especially in this idea of the Americanness and what it entails, yet Russell to me feels equally trapped, just in a way that feels more sheltered by society.
ReplyDeleteFord has a gift for setting that blows my mind. It took me a few paragraphs to discover why it was that so much of his writing felt so observed, but ultimately I feel like it comes down to that beautiful interplay of the exposition incorporating highly specific place details and the way that the characters interact with their environments. These characters are not ones who seem to say, “I live here, but I will talk like I am from somewhere else.” They don’t really attempt to rise above their local languages or present themselves, at least in this way if not on deeper levels, as someone they are not. Even in the exposition the tone will take on this cadence of locality, where things are not said the most directly, or the most cleanly, but they are nonetheless said in a way that is incredibly indicative of what they are trying to represent. I would disagree with Julia slightly on the account that Ford does not prioritize language. He seems to be very aware of language through my reading. The difference to me is that he does not attempt to flower language up, but rather attempts to represent the “common man,” or, if you will, the American, by playing with language to a point where it nudges so closely against this idea of roughness that it can only come off as true.
These stories by Richard Ford are definitely some of my favorite stories that we have read in this class so far. Not only do I enjoy his strong sense of the American dream that I will discuss later, but I love the voice that is portrayed in these stories. In the beginning of Rock Springs, the reader knows instantly that there is so much more in the past of these characters that is setting them up for where they are in the present moment. I love that beginning paragraph because it so easily causes the reader to trust the voice and characters, because we are seeing right away that the author has grounded them with experiences in their past that has led them to the current story. I think that is all something we should remember in writing, that our characters are more than just what is on the page and their stories in the present are affected by their stories in the past. It kind of makes me think of experimenting with writing a story or two following the same person like Junot Diaz does.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, Richard Ford clearly evokes themes of the American dream in his stories, this everlasting thread of hope that seems to be interlaced with the bullshit of these peoples lives. I think what really makes these stories rooted in American ideals is that all of the characters are aware of what is better out there for them. They know there is something on the other side of the track that they could have had had they not fucked up somewhere, somehow and been led down this path of “that place you said you’d never be”, that line in Sweethearts I think is what sums up these stories together in one line. These characters have ended up where they said they never wanted to be and they are in the quicksand and can’t get out.
My favorite of the three that we read were Rock Springs and Sweethearts because I think I was fully invested in the stories and characters the most. What I think about how Ford wrote these, is that all of the characters come across as good people. You’re not listening to these stories of shitty people getting into trouble and whining about how they’re stuck in life. You’re invested because these characters know what’s up, they are aware and present and are decent people at the end of the day just trying to get by.
I enjoyed these stories actually, like Caroline, they were some of my favorites. When I was reading “Sweethearts” I noticed this lose and yet gain of the American dream. Something in this story that really stuck with me was the fact that all the adult characters had been divorced. I feel like we are now growing up in a time where divorce is almost more common than marriage. I look at that and see the loss of the American dream where it is no longer just the mom, dad, kids, and a dog. I think it is interesting that in this story we see all these elements but they come about in a different way. Like the fact that Arlene is not Cherry’s mother, and that she has this slightly weird relationship with her ex-husband, Bobby. And then there is Russ who is Cherry’s dad and is married to Arlene and now they have a dog, even though it is Bobby’s dog. The entire story is like a backdoor American dream. Where they have all the elements but these things did not come to them in that cookie-cutter/apple pie fashion. Which I think this idea comes up at the end where Arlene and Russ are in the car and they throw the gun out the window and into the river. It was their attempt to get back to their shot at their own American dream, because without Bobby, they have a mom, a dad, a kid, and a dog.
ReplyDeleteI liked the way that Ford writes. I thought it was slightly off, but in a sense, so is the story and I think it worked in his favor. The opening line to “Sweethearts” is, “I was standing in the kitchen while Arlene was in the living room saying good-bye to her ex-husband, Bobby.” To me, that was what made me want to keep reading. I wanted to understand why this main character was so nonchalant about his wife being in the other room talking to her ex-husband. It sets up so many questions right off the bat, but not in a confusing way and I really liked that and I found the rest of the story rather interesting as well.
As previously mentioned, I think one of my favorite aspects were the instances concerning the American Dream. I found myself not stuck in the same rut that I usually see concerning writing that involves the American Dream. In a comparison it seemed to remind me a little bit of Geroge Saunders and the take he took concerning the American Dream in his short story the Sempla Girl Diaries.
ReplyDeleteBut I think what ended up helping play into Ford's distinct Americanism in these stories were the ways he played with the voice and setting. In each story the setting was so well done that at certain parts in the story it seemed to be its own living breathing character. Although, many writers strive to do this in their own pieces its very rarely seen this well done and instantly drew me into the piece.
The voice Ford plays with is something that just seems to further the notion of how experienced Ford is with playing with the deals of Americanism in his stories. I really enjoyed Ford and think he was an interesting author to read after all of this.
I enjoyed these stories a lot actually. Rocky Spring and Sweetheart were two of my favorites. I like it when the author has some way of including the American Dream, it is a very interesting topic to talk about. George Saunders talked a lot about the American Dream so it was easy to draw a connection between him and Ford. It was interesting how they both wrote about the same idea but in different ways. Like Aubrey said, I noticed that Saunder's characters were trying to fit in more to this idea of the American Dream, where Ford's characters broke the norms to find the freedom of the American Dream. I liked how we got a lot of history and past between the two characters in the beginning of Sweethearts so we knew what was up beforehand without going into too much expository detail that would sometimes leave the reader uninterested. I thought Ford did a great job keeping the reader interested and engaged. I enjoyed the characters he how he was well observed throughout his pieces. I think we can gave a good discussion about this in class and I hope we can draw some connections between Saunders and Ford.
ReplyDelete