Q & A with Timothy Schaffert Timothy Schaffert's delightful third novel, Devils In The Sugar Shop, was published this year to outstanding reviews. Fresh and original, this is part of the description on the book's back cover: The lives of a failed erotic novelist, a hostess of prim sex-toy parties, an artist and abookshop owner pursued by a demented if harmless stalker-all members of the artsy crowd in Omaha, Nebraska-collide one snowy winter evening, the week beforeValentine's Day. These wives and lovers plot to hold onto families, friendships and personal lives during an extravagant evening of wildy innocent sex parties, and may only be saved by their own children, a timely fire, and a return to their senses. The novel is much richer and more sophisticated upon repeated readings than it initially seems; I asked Schaffert a few questions and he was kind enough to take the time to share his thoughts with us: I was impressed by your sensitivity to language and expressions, for example the use of "bobby-dazzler." That raised a point for me that might seem a little obscure, which is that Devils in the Sugar Shop is very now, very comtemporary, very much of this place and time. Yet at one point the same could have been said of "bobby-dazzler", which is wholly extinct today. I was wondering if you meant perhaps to make a point along the lines of "The more things change, the more they stay the same"? The character of Peyton, who makes use of the word "bobby-dazzler," is desperate to render herself strange and antique. She's in her late teens, a freshman in college, and feels the need to distinguish herself, not to set herself apart from her pack, but to be the leader of the pack. If she can seem inaccessible, whether because of her style or because of her prickly disposition, then she believes she'll be pursued. So hers is a juvenile version of an instinct that all the people in the book have… they long for the life of the artist, of the outsider, but they also want to be beloved and accepted; I suspect that's an age-old conflict. That probably doesn't quite answer your question… speaking more directly to this notion of things changing/staying the same, I will say that I consciously wanted to write a novel influenced by the times we live in, and how romance is aided or thwarted by contemporary permissiveness, whether its via an openness that the Internet invites, or changing definitions of marriage and fidelity. But the Internet didn't invent the current state of romance, so these are probably age-old conflicts too. I read somewhere recently that we're in an age of neo-Puritanism, and that seems apt, and all the more complicated by the fact that the anonymity allowed on the Internet provides a kind of openness and exploration that we then are expected to apologize for when those desires and impulses reach into the wider culture. The farcical device of one person mistakenly sending an email to the wrong recipient, thus causing huge embarrassment to all, I thought really brought out your adroitness in working within the overall genre of farce (if that's what you intended). Any thoughts about that? I love the work of Robert Altman, particularly those films that have all the qualities of documentary, and yet prove to be biting satire. And yet, in the end, in those films, you're moved by the plight of the characters. And so though there are things lampooned in "Devils in the Sugar Shop," and the characters definitely find themselves in some ridiculous situations, I didn't want the farcical elements to prove distancing, or for the characters to seem like a series of punch lines. So the farcical devices served to move the novel along, but I needed for the characters to respond to their circumstances in the way that real people would. Your love of literature really comes through in this novel, from having a character as a struggling author (Ashley), a bookstore as a principal setting, and numerous literary allusions from a signed Walker Percy novel to Harold Robbins and everything in between. Many authors and publishers I talk with have mixed feelings - could you share with us your opinion of the state of literature in America today? Literature is so diverse, and yet we tend to act like we're all talking about one thing when we talk about reading. The parameters of art are constantly changing, particularly now, as the commercial publishing industry is focused on blockbusters, and the Internet is so chock-full of good stuff that's free and invigorating, whether its commentary, criticism, history, cultural analysis, or humor. As a culture, we're becoming more democratic about the arts… maybe executives at record companies or whatnot won't be able to get rich in the future. Maybe we won't have a need for them anymore. Maybe Madonnas won't rise up to dominate the airwaves. It's becoming evident that musicians, writers, artists of all kinds can find an audience, and we're learning, in this fragmented culture, that having a small audience is more than enough to fulfill an artist's need for expression. There are all these surveys lamenting that fewer people read books, and yet clearly more people are reading in general… they're just not necessarily seeking out the traditional modes of publication. Sure, we probably all want our work to be widely read and celebrated, but that's all in the aftermath of the creative expression, it's a different desire. It seems like we're in the process of reducing everything to the basic elements… a writer and a reader. You hear people complain that there are no editors on the Internet, no filters, and yet there's something exciting about that frontier quality, or venturing into all the messiness and discovering good writing and interesting ideas, or crazily obsessive commitment to arcane information. There are some great print literary journals, but there are many that go widely unread except by tenure-granting committees and other members of the establishment. But is that such a tragedy? The appeal of literature is by nature based on a personal connection. It's only by our need for a communal connection (and a publisher's practical need to make money in order to function) that we have this notion that we should all be reading the same books. I was intrigued by Sybil The Guru. Motivational speakers are a real satirical target in fiction these days, but you portrayed her a little differently than most authors have done with people of her profession. What were your intentions with her? She began as an actual character in the novel, so she wasn't invented as a satirical target, but rather as another woman among the lovelorn. But in revising the novel, she seemed of more value as a voice guiding, or misguiding, the characters. And her advice is culled from conversations that I've actually had with women; she's offering solutions that may sound daffy, but are ones that women I know have pursued. Sometimes a single sentence from a work is so priceless it will never be forgotten by anybody who reads it, for example "My erotica is an erotica of the damaged." That whole little scene, where Mrs. Bloom says "Who gives a shit about your heart?" is very revealing about the way the stroy actually turns out in the end, so I was wondering, do you plan out the whole story from beginnning to end before you start a novel, or do you things occur to you as you go along? A little of both. I like to have a notion in my head of where things are going, but it's not a strict outline. Things get changed as I go along, as I get to know the characters a little better. As a writer, I rely a lot on my subconscious, and let it guide me. If I intellectualize in the process too much, then I've not given enough over to chance. This passage seems to me to reveal quite a bit about the artistic process as it relates to writing fiction, it's very insightful: "Since her new erotic novel was meeting with rejection, Ashleu was de-sexing it and re-peopling it, taking notes, filling the book with her friends' and family's oddball idiosyncrasies. Maybe she would render this book impossibly personal, unpublishable." Could you expound on this thought for us? Maybe it speaks to this notion I mentioned above, about reducing everything to the reader and the writer, to getting back to the basics of creative expression? Ashley had a shot at success as a writer, and it didn't happen for her. She can either let it disappoint her, or she can use it as a liberating experience… and write what she really cares about Back to Peter