In high school, I was really into writing short stories. Which means I have generated a lot of overly-wrought dark, horror fiction with humiliation and boredom as key underlying themes. (Fun times) But anyway, back then I remember reading a piece of writing advice about dialogue. I cannot find a reference for this dim memory… I have rummaged through my brain and google is no help.
Basically, the advise pointed out the fact that if you were to write down what people say in real life as dialogue, it would be really boring to read. That in fact, “real sounding dialogue” should almost never be taken literally and misconstrued as praise. A good writer is not merely a docmentalist that records data from people’s conversations. I wanted to point to this piece of excellent wisdom when reading Helene Littmann’s Peripheries… and deciding around page 60 that I have had enough of Stephanie or Claire or Linda or whoever was talking.
There were many things that were basically bad about this book, so I will start with the good. There were solid passages (with no dialogue) about high school that I liked. I liked the passage where she talks about building relationships with people who you hung out with, because you had to—not because they were friends. I also liked the scene where the main character goes to this mall she remembers from high school, and realizes that all those inferiority complexes she suffered then haven’t entirely gone away with age. I should give this book a chance, and keep reading. But I won’t. All of the characters and their lives are boring. Which would be okay with me, if the writing was not also boring.
The first novella centers around Stephanie, a mid-20s woman working as a temp for some anti-violence educational workshop outfit or something. It’s in Canada. She is satisfied with the lack of Activism(with a capital A) in her life, while her boyfriend (Duncan) dreams of bigger things. She has an annoying friend, Tash, who doesn’t like food and talks about violence against women a lot. Stephanie’s character is the most refreshing in this sea of do-gooders who are vocal and social-justicey in that obnoxious, righteous way. But Littmann never highlights this advantage that Stephanie’s character has in like-ability, or if she does it gets drowned in all the talking. It was hard to figure out if the dialogues on peace and social causes were meant to be taken as farcical or on its face value. I think the former, but it’s muted. And boring.
