What Elmore Leonard Tells Us About Character Ownership

This week at the Barnes & Noble Review, editor-in-chief James Mustich has a lengthy and illuminating conversation with Elmore Leonard to coincide, more or less, with the publication of Leonard's new novel ROAD DOGS. Granted, I'm on record as having particular issues with Leonard's oeuvre - I recognize he is a master even as I have something of a tin ear to his style of writing, with the most recent exception of THE HOT KID - but ROAD DOGS in particular struck me as an odd creature. Parsing Leonard's comments on the book to Mustich, I think I understand why:

JM: In the new book, you bring back three characters: Jack Foley from Out of Sight, Cundo Rey from LaBrava, and Dawn Navarro from Riding the Rap. What drew you back to these characters in particular?

EL: I didn't think I'd done enough with Cundo Rey and Dawn in those earlier books. I liked Cundo Rey a lot. He's a show-off, he's a go-go dancer, and all that. And I was never sure if Dawn was actually psychic [LAUGHS] -- but she was psychic enough to say, when she was talking on the phone to somebody, "Why don't you put the light on? I can't see you." So I wonder, is she faking? And I'm not sure.

JM: And Foley?

EL: Because George Clooney played Foley, and I thought it was one of his best pictures -- no doubt about it. I thought he'd want to do another one. Well, [LAUGHING] he hasn't read it yet, and he's had it -- oh, god, he's had it probably eight or nine months.

JM: What was it like writing for Foley's character this time, with Clooney in your head? Was it more difficult than creating the pre-Clooney Foley in the first book?

EL: It worked -- because I could hear Clooney. Can't you hear Clooney?

JM: Oh yes. From start to finish. You found that to be a happy coincidence, rather than being problematic in any way?

EL: Sure. I couldn't bring back one of my favorite characters, Stick, because Burt Reynolds played him, and if I think of Burt Reynolds as Stick, it won't work. [LAUGHS]

Leonard's done this sort of thing before (BE COOL, anyone?) But ROAD DOGS in particular spun its story at a remove because it was apparent to me that Foley was George Clooney-playing-Foley instead of the actual character, which automatically narrows the range of possibilities for the reader. Leonard, understandably, might now associate Foley with Clooney because OUT OF SIGHT, the movie reached a much wider audience than the book ever could (because movie audiences are, and probably will always be, significantly greater than book readership) but what of readers who haven't seen the movie - or who have, but reject the celluloid depiction of a given character because they have their own indelible image and voice associated with the character? And if an author is so willing to cede his or her vision to Hollywood, what does it say for their authorial vision?

Such questions resonate even more when looking back at Alexander McCall Smith's essay in the Wall Street Journal two months ago about the intense personal relationships readers forge with certain characters who become, in their minds, beloved. And woe be those who deviate from readerly expectations:

For the author, this sense that the reader has of the reality of the story has serious implications for how characters are treated in novels. It is one of the jobs of fiction to report on the sorrows and tragedies of this world. This must be done, though, from a morally acceptable standpoint. A writer who told a story of, say, rape or genocide but did so from a neutral or, worse still, complicit position would be given very short shrift indeed. Readers and critics would be on to him in no time at all; indeed a book like that would be unlikely to be published at all. Why? If it is only a story, where is the harm?

Stories have an effect in this world. They are part of our moral conversation as a society. They weigh in; they change the world because they become part of our cultural history. There never was an Anna Karenina or a Madame Bovary, even if there might have been models, but what happened to these characters has become part of the historical experience of women. When J.K. Rowling revealed in New York that Professor Dumbledore was gay, the announcement was widely welcomed. One would have thought that it would make no earthly difference to anything whether a fictional character had a particular sexual preference, but it did: People applauded and applauded. That must have been because they felt that this announcement had some significance for the real-life issue of accepting gay people fully.

McCall Smith brings up larger issues than Leonard generally deals with, and certainly does not in ROAD DOGS, but I can't help wondering if, in deliberately pleasing the crowd, Leonard missed out on stamping his authorial authority that much more.

Comments

[Jersey Jack]

"It is one of the jobs of fiction to report on the sorrows and tragedies of this world."

Were this true of all fiction, hundreds of thousands of us would have nothing to read.

[I.J.Parker]

For the writer of a series, the problem of readers becoming addicted and taking personal charge of the protagonist is both exhilarating and frustrating. It is wonderful that the character touches their lives, but if the author keeps developing the character with both strengths and weaknesses, readers may soon take exception. I'm reminded that an estrangement between Akitada and his wife upset my agent, and that a reviewer was mildly put out by a brief affair (even though the Japanese customs of the time accepted such behavior). We cannot forget that we write for an American audience of the 21st century.

[Charlie Stella]

Let me get this straight: We’re questioning Elmore Leonard’s authorial authority because George Clooney brought something to the role the author obviously felt enhanced the character?

While some of his fans might prefer the more mysterious protagonist (as he was originally created by the author), the author still maintains his authority (if you will) giving more light to Clooney’s portrayal (I suspect). It’s still Leonard’s baby, so to speak, even if he is molding it toward a perspective enhanced by an actor. Ultimately, it is the actor who has to make what he (or she) can of the character, even if the 2nd version/sequel is fine tuned to his (or her) favor.

As for “It is one of the jobs of fiction to report on the sorrows and tragedies of this world.” That, too, is shaded by perspectives (usually depending on whose ox is gored and/or what a reader wants). I suspect that if all fiction veered toward the sorrows and tragedies of this world, I’d see even more Ipods on the Staten Island Ferry.

[Charlie Stella]

Sarah, I just went back to read your post regarding why you don’t like Leonard and found this troublesome. I hadn’t seen it before: “In other words, there’s honesty to their writing which I find lacking in those like Leonard or Higgins or Jim Thompson, another writer whose work somehow eludes me.”

I guess I’m at the polar opposite of your perspective regarding “honesty” when dealing with the characters of Leonard, Higgins and Thompson (especially Higgins). From where I sit, they nailed it. Higgins laid it out there for what it was; either you connected with his characters or you didn’t, but to suggest his characters weren’t honest is baffling. His four novels were literary (as well as criminal) masterpieces of character devoured by their reality; there was no hope for Eddie Coyle, the Digger, et al … the worlds of those characters don’t permit much in the way of hope. If that doesn’t turn a reader on, so be it, but it doesn’t get more honest, I don’t think, than writing about characters many readers won’t get because of the inherent honesty of the material.

[Sarah]

Charlie - very interesting comments. Keep in mind, my Leonard post was from five years ago, and while I stand by what I wrote at the time, I think (or I hope) I can phrase things a little more eloquently now. Point being, it comes down more or less to individual response, and it would be less than honest (ha) for me to disavow this when talking about writers who clearly, and should be, part of the critical conversation of crime fiction.

But back to Leonard. He liked Clooney as Jack, and that makes it easier for him to write the character. Okay. But he also brings up Stick as being problematic because Burt Reynolds played him. Why is that problematic? I suppose not everyone can be as sanguine about the book/movie disconnect as James M. Cain (or whoever actually uttered the oft-misquoted phrase "my book is over here, on the shelf, and no one can take that away from me.") but even so, it strikes me that Leonard is ceding some degree of creative control away from himself and more towards the movies.

Then again, it could also be a more democratic approach, and as the notion of "authors" and "books" and "publishers" change, maybe, for all I know, Leonard has it right on the money and is actually something of a forward-thinker.

[Charlie Stella]

You wrote: Then again, it could also be a more democratic approach, and as the notion of "authors" and "books" and "publishers" change, maybe, for all I know, Leonard has it right on the money and is actually something of a forward-thinker.

That is a very good and scary point (so touché).

I think back to a forward he (Leonard) wrote for one of the reprints of Eddie Coyle and what you wrote scares me (if it turns out to be accurate--or worse, it already is) ... in encouraging aspiring authors, Leonard mentioned letting publishers catch up to you (and had mentioned the amazing # of times Eddie Coyle was rejected by agents before it was picked up) as well as how many had told him he’d never get far writing about unsympathetic characters.

Hopefully Leonard's advice still holds water and hasn't been overrun by a sadly dwindling market.

We already know bookscan #’s rule the day, but maybe the formula (for $uccess anyway) requires more input than authors might want to deal with.

If that truly is the case, then vey iz truly mir.

I have to doubt it would influence somebody as established as Leonard, though. My guess is he’s just having fun … and as much as I liked Burt Reynolds in Boogie Nights, he was tainted with those dopey comedies and I can’t imagine him playing a Loenard character (yet he was wonderful in his Carl Hiaasen Striptease role). Who knows?

[Jersey Jack]

I think Reynolds did an excellent job as Stick, but Clooney was even better as Jack Foley. Reading OUT OF SIGHT the week it was published, I saw Jack as handsome, charming, with a big soft spot. Maybe a bit stubborn and dumb. Clooney nailed it for me and everybody I know who read the book first. Reading ROAD DOGS, many of us actually see Clooney when Jack's on stage, so maybe Leonard, who says he's a fan of the character, can't help doing the same.

Also, I was harsh in my earlier comment on sorrows and tragedies. They are part of life and obviously part of fiction. But foremost I want to be entertained, experiencing everything through the eyes and hearts of characters I love.

[Dana King]

I left a comment on one of the original 2004 posts that probably should have been left here. I read them both, and found your comments on gender differences in writing to be thought provoking. I'll admit to reading far more fiction written by males. I think it's because many of the female writers I've encountered feel the need to make sure I understand a character's motivation and spell it out for me. The male writers I read multiple times tend to trust me to figure that out for myself. It doesn't mean the characters' motivations aren't important, just that they're not going to explain them to me in detail.

In a related note, I can see why Higgins isn't everyone's cup of tea, for the reasons Charlie cited above. I still think it's a masterpiece of crime fiction, worth mention with the more frequently acknowledged greats.

[Rabid Fox]

I can't help myself. I'm an unrepentant Leonard fan, and I haven't even read that many of his novels. Nearly every one I have, however, has been enjoyable. And I gotta say that I am all in favor of a "Foley" sequel, even if he's using Clooney as a reference point in his writing.