• Home
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Events
  • About
  • Contact
Menu

Chelsey Drysdale

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
Editor. Writer. Collaborator.

Your Custom Text Here

Chelsey Drysdale

  • Home
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Events
  • About
  • Contact

Concealing a Memoir Character’s Identity

September 23, 2023 Chelsey Drysdale

How I Wrote a Memoir: Part XV

How to Write about Real People Anonymously

After my developmental editor read my essay collection, I sent him a couple extra pieces involving a Very Important Person I left out of the manuscript. I’d written the pieces for a workshop, shared them with the workshop, received feedback, and rewritten them. Then I’d set them aside, knowing if I included them in the manuscript—with the specific details I’d shared—several people would ascertain his identity, which I considered a deal-breaker.

I convinced myself I didn’t need him in the manuscript; I could write a book in which his presence in my life was nonexistent. My editor set me straight, calling him and two other Very Important Persons in the Chelsey Orbit my “triptych of superimposed happiness.” He said the absent VIP was the “logical ending.” How could I leave him out if he was one side of a triangle central to the narrative? Could I turn a two-sided triangle into a pointy hat or a pup tent instead, pretending this person doesn’t take up space in my consciousness? Leaving him out felt wrong; putting him in seemed impossible.

But my editor gave me the permission I needed in one sentence: “You can write about him completely anonymously.” I knew in that instant he had to be in the story. But how does one write about someone completely anonymously?

What I Didn’t Do

Memoirists attempt to conceal identities by changing people’s names, which I did from the outset with most of the characters in my manuscript; some writers also change job titles, hometowns, and other major defining details about people. However, I had to take this situation to the next level: I had to write intimate, honest scenes without hinting at anything that might tip off readers who know him. Aside from providing him with an apropos nickname, here’s what I didn’t do:

  • I didn’t reveal where any of the action between us took place. I used the obscurity of the locations to my advantage. We could be in any city, in any state, in any country, and the interactions, thoughts, and emotions would be the same. We could sit on any bench next to any body of water and still have the same conversation. We could have met in any dive bar. We could have had philosophical conversations in any speakeasy. In a two-person world, the bustling world outside doesn’t have to exist.

  • I didn’t talk about his children. Knowing he’s an attentive father is enough.

  • I didn’t write the scenes that would automatically divulge who he is—no matter how pivotal they are. If I provided an example here, that would negate what I did in the book to painstakingly keep his identity hidden.

  • I didn’t mention what he does for a living. While this would lend new layers to his personality, I had to skip his day-to-day involvement in the world.

  • I didn’t discuss his personal hobbies and activities. Like his profession, this would be a way to build character, but his unique and disparate interests, especially when lumped together, are indicative of him as a person.

Dialogue, Setting, and Metaphors

Without these elements, then, can a writer do a person and a story justice? Of course! But how? I wrote scenes and curated written and spoken exchanges carefully to convey what’s vital. Here’s what else I did in the memoir version:

  • Foremost, I made ample use of dialogue, both in-person and online. I saved texts, Facebook messages, and other written correspondence, which I wove into the story. How do two people sustain a long-distance connection in our modern digital era? How do texts relate to brief face-to-face contact, and how do conversations extend from one interaction to the next? How does technology play a role in a cyber-relationship based on thoughtful correspondence, what-ifs, and intense emotions? And how do monthslong stretches of silence affect the outcome?

  • When describing his appearance, I mentioned his “gentle, kind smile” and “bright” eyes without referring to height, hair color, eye color, etc.

  • I described the setting without naming it—and I explicitly connected setting to time because much of the in-person scenes occur in roughly the same space on the map. For example, the bench where we had a key conversation one year no longer existed a few years later after a major renovation when we met up there again. How did the same setting change from year to year? What does it look like, and what occurred there? There’s no need to name the exact spot.

  • I used metaphors to describe my feelings about him and our situation. I reconfigured the “boy meets girl” fairytale narrative to explain my motives. What does a timely, realistic “fairytale” look like, and how does it differ from the sugarcoated ones fed to us in Disney films?

  • I wrote scenes in which I discussed this person with other people. What are outsiders’ reactions to our connection and the circumstances surrounding it?

  • I wrote imaginary scenes that never happened. I envisioned an alternate universe in which they did. The reader is privy to what’s real versus what’s in my head.

Is This Chapter a Novel Instead?

At dinner recently, a close friend and I talked about some of the important events I had to leave out and how frustrating that was. She suggested I write a novel on the topic instead. Now I can’t stop thinking about it. Autofiction would be an excellent way to tell the story—and use my imagination to its fullest potential.

I never thought of myself as someone who could write fiction until I read Jenny Offill’s Dept. of Speculation. I knew I wanted to write a novel after I read that book. I started a novel in 2019 loosely based on my experiences as a high school English teacher. I worked on it for a year, completing one hundred pages of a draft. Then I realized what the story was about. I planned to start from page one again. I put it aside, and I haven’t picked it back up yet.

But now I have a cool new idea, thanks to my astute friend. I don’t know whether to be grateful or pissed she thought of it first. In the meantime, I have to figure out what to do with the memoir I already wrote: Set it aside? Cut it up on the floor and rearrange it? Write more? Keep sending it out as is? Publish more pieces of it as standalone essays?

The Problem with Memoir Endings

Before I consider scrapping a decade of my work, we have to talk about endings in the next installment. I wrote at least four or five of them. I may have to write yet another one if my circumstances change again before I hear a “yes” from the publishing powers that be—if that ever happens.

How does a writer end a memoir when life never stops unfolding until she’s no longer living?

Tags writing, editing, essay, memoir, Chelsey Drysdale, Drysdale Editorial, novel, character

The Art of Revision

October 31, 2022 Chelsey Drysdale

Bread Loaf Lecture Series
November 8, 2021

Peter Ho Davies
The Art of Revision: The Last Word

Nine Revision Tips

Excerpts:

Peter Ho Davies:

  1. Rather than think of our intentions, it may help to think of our original idea of a story as a hypothesis. A draft is an experiment designed to test that hypothesis. One hypothesis: “I think I know the ending.” The ends we have in mind for first drafts are typically climaxes. It usually ends later than we expect—or sooner. An experiment isn’t a failure if it disproves a hypothesis. For a scientist, that’s a success. It means they’ve learned something.

  2. What counts as progress in revision? Don’t measure progress toward a perfection—or even finishing—but toward greater knowledge of your story. If you’ve learned something new about your character, especially if that leads to further revision, you’ve made progress. Most successful revisions prompt further revisions.

  3. One step forward, two steps back. It’s vital to embrace new knowledge because our tendency is to fear it. New knowledge often brings complication. We need to recalibrate our goals, manage our morals, buy ourselves time and patience for revision. Complications should be welcomed as adding depth, texture, and complexity to our work.

  4. Revision is not only editing in the sense of cutting or contraction. There’s time for this kind of revision later in the process. Many second or third drafts need to expand rather than contract. Most of us learn what we know by writing. If you cut too soon, you may not have discovered what you need to know.

  5. Sore thumbs. Workshop is good at identifying problems in the story. We cut those problems. We lop off the sore thumbs—in other words, hammer flat the proud nails. Yet sometimes these odd details, these untidy anomalies, are worth expanding on. The easiest things to cut are the things we wonder, “I’m not even sure why that’s there.” They may be the least planned, most alive things, the places where our subconscious is burrowing into our conscious intent. Following those leads, rather than erasing them, can lead to revisionary discoveries.

  6. Door number one and door number two. Workshop feedback often presents revisionary choices: door number one and door number two. You might be paralyzed by the choices of revisionary responses. That paralysis often results in no choice being made. We fear the wrong choice because it will waste time. We fear making the wrong choice. We make no choice. But what’s the worst that can happen? You make the wrong choice, pursue it, discover it was the wrong choice, and go back to the previous draft. It’s not a wasted endeavor. It’s a successful experiment. The main thing is not to get too hung up on the choice. “Suck it and see,” as we say in England. The choice is hard because we have imperfect information. We can’t see all the ways the choice will play out. The only way to rectify that is to try one path and see where it leads. The only way to choose, in other words, is to choose. And sometimes the only way to choose the right option is to choose the wrong one first.

  7. Boredom. There are writers who will describe this—otherwise known as exhaustion—as the end point of revision. By all means, take a break, but don’t see boredom as necessarily the end. As any child knows, it’s the soil for daydreaming, for imagination. Everyone here is a writer because they were bored. Ask kids in college, at work. Boredom isn’t the end. It’s just a phase of the process before a breakthrough—if we can only wait it out.

  8. Don’t forget to revise titles. They tend to be set in stone very quickly. Shifting the title might be a new nudge for the next revision.

  9. Doneness. Contrary to workshop rules of engagement, we don’t all know what we intend when we set out on a first draft. Not knowing what we intend is not the same as having no intention. Our writing reveals the limits of our original idea, the fuzziness of it—at which point, we’re often tempted to give up. I’d argue on the contrary that we need to persevere. We lose faith in the shining idea that got us started when we discovered its flaws. Our idea is more worthy, not loss, of further explanation. Our discovery our idea isn’t as sharp as we hoped doesn’t mean our idea is no good. This seems to me the exact purpose of revision: not the perfection of expression of some already known subject or idea but the investigation of it toward a deeper understanding. We revise, which is to say, we write to understand our intent, to understand our stories, to understand ourselves. “Love having written” [like Dorothy Parker] means finally understanding what we were doing. That’s how you know you’re done: when you understand why you told your story in the first place.

Peter Ho Davies’ own story of his father and a racist incident when he was a boy took him forty years of revision to find the truth. It’s not a story about bravery or heroism; it’s a story about a level of closeness, not distance, with his father. His father was white and helped another boy in a racist incident because it was the incident he always feared would happen to his son, so he was ready to act. Davies didn’t want to get involved. He was ashamed. The last time he told this story was at his father’s funeral in 2018.

Davies: That’s why we do it. Forty years is worth it, and that’s what revision is.

Q & A: The Marie Kondo strategy of revision: Save the things that bring you joy. So rather than kill our darlings, we kill everything but the darlings. The novelist can also revise as they move forward. Critiques of first chapters can be altered as we press on in many ways. The great struggle of a novel is a bootstrapping issue. We need to tell the story in order to find out what it is, but at the outset we nonetheless need to come up with a hypothesis: “What is the best way to tell my story?” As we get further into the story, our hypothesis about how to tell the story might not be correct. The story has taught us this might not be the best way to tell the story.

Writers (novelists) occasionally change course midcourse. The book decides it’s now part two. Rather than abandoning part one, hit the reset button in a way. Example: Lauren Groff’s Fates and Furies. It feels like the book reinvented itself—revised itself—at the halfway point. Another example of reinventing itself midcourse: Susan Choi’s Trust Exercise. Other writers make shapely art out of those moves, whereas I stumble into mistakes. They wouldn’t do that by design, but it works. They are responding to their material.

Revision is the act of fine-tuning and recalibration. Heavy-handed or too subtle/opaque: Those two things represent the same problem. The sweet spot is recalibration. Most of us are inclined to err on the side of too subtle. Heavy-handed just sounds bad. Too subtle sounds like too much of a good thing. The way you find that sweet spot is not to creep up on it progressively; the way to find it is to undershoot it, and then in a later draft overshoot it. At least now you know it lies between those two spaces.

Tags writing, revision, Bread Loaf, Peter Ho Davies, Chelsey Drysdale, Drysdale Editorial, The Art of Revision, book, novel
Comment

Content by Chelsey Drysdale. All Rights Reserved.

POWERED BY SQUARESPACE.