|
BIO
Jodi Picoult received an A.B. in creative writing from Princeton and a master's degree in education from Harvard. The recipient of the 2003 New England Book Award for her entire body of work, she is the author of SONGS OF THE HUMPBACK WHALE (1992), HARVESTING THE HEART (1994), PICTURE PERFECT (1995), MERCY (1996), THE PACT (1998), KEEPING FAITH (1999), PLAIN TRUTH (2000), SALEM FALLS (2001), PERFECT MATCH (2002), SECOND GLANCE (2003), MY SISTER'S KEEPER (2004), VANISHING ACTS (2005), THE TENTH CIRCLE (2006), NINETEEN MINUTES (2007) and CHANGE OF HEART (2008). She lives in New Hampshire with her husband and three children.
Back to top.
AUTHOR TALK
 March 7, 2008
Jodi Picoult is the bestselling author of such novels as NINETEEN MINUTES, MY SISTER'S KEEPER, VANISHING ACTS and THE TENTH CIRCLE. Her latest work of fiction, CHANGE OF HEART, delves into the polemical issue of the death penalty and how one's perspective on the matter is often dependent upon religious beliefs. In this interview, Picoult discusses how she became fascinated with the subject and recalls some of the eye-opening events she experienced while researching. She also sheds light on Gospel history, ruminates on the difficulty of discussing religion today and shares details of her next novel, HANDLE WITH CARE.
Question: What was the seed that started this story? You've sympathetically delved into the minds of criminals in your previous novels, but what led you this time to death row?
Jodi Picoult: Most of my books begin with something I'm worrying about, and CHANGE OF HEART was no exception. As an American, I feel like this country can be folded along a fault line of religion --- all the controversial issues (abortion, gay rights, capital punishment) can often be judged along religious lines. It got me wondering why religion, which was historically meant to unite people, has become so divisive...and why we believe what we do. Who says that just because you're right, that means someone else has to be wrong? Why do we believe the things that we do --- because they're right, or because it's too scary to admit we don't know the answers? I narrowed the focus along capital punishment because it's one of the controversies in America that people have passionate opinions about --- but often don't know why they have those opinions, or bother to listen to the other side's arguments...and because I, myself, didn't know how I'd feel about the death penalty when I finished exploring its underlying issues.
Q: Did you personally visit death row prisoners? What was that experience like? What did you expect going in, and what were you surprised by?
JP: I've been to death row in Arizona, twice now. It's a very strange place --- in all the years I've been doing research, I don't think I've ever seen such a cloud of secrecy like the one I found there. I was literally on a plane when my visit was being nearly canceled --- I had to arrive at the facility and talk my way into it, because they decided if I was a writer, I must be "media." I was able to charm the authorities into giving me a tour of their death row --- which is more serene than you'd think, because the inmates are locked into their individual cells twenty-three hours a day.
Then I begged to be taken to the execution chamber --- the death house, as it used to be called in Arizona. It was while I was examining their gas chamber (Arizona uses both gas and lethal injection) that the warden approached me to ask me again who I was, and why I was writing a book about this. She definitely had her guard up --- and wasn't budging an inch. We started talking about the last execution in Arizona, and at some point she mentioned she was a practicing Catholic. "If you're Catholic," I said, "do you think the death penalty is a good thing?" She stared at me for a long moment and then said, "I used to."
At that moment, the wall between us came down, and she was willing to tell me everything I wanted and needed to know --- including scenes you'll see in CHANGE OF HEART --- details that are top secret, and that aren't even given to prisoners who sue for the information. At one point I was talking to the warden in the death house, and I was having trouble juggling notebooks and papers. I leaned against the closest surface to take notes more easily...only to realize I was sprawled across the lethal injection gurney, which really freaked me out! What surprised me the most about death row was that everyone I met who worked there in Arizona said they did not believe in the death penalty --- they'd seen too many old feeble men executed, because the system takes so long; they'd seen recidivist criminals whose crimes weren't "eligible" for the death penalty. To them, justice didn't seem particularly just, and yet they all also said they would continue to do their jobs.
I went back a second time to meet a death row prisoner named Robert Towery. We are still pen pals --- he calls me ma'am, asks after my kids, and is a brilliant artist (he has to make his own pigments, like Lucius in CHANGE OF HEART). He fills me in on the plots of "Lost" and "Grey's Anatomy." He is by all accounts a very nice guy --- except for the fact that he committed armed robbery and told the victim he was going to anesthetize him...and instead injected the guy with battery acid and killed him. He says he was high at the time, and has been sober for over a decade now. It really made me think hard: We all know it's wrong to execute someone innocent. But what about someone who's guilty?
Q: When did you first encounter the Gnostic gospels and what did you find striking about them?
JP: I had first heard about them on a PBS documentary, and I was struck by the individuality they advocated in religious practice --- the idea that it's different for everyone, that there might be many paths up to the same spiritual peak. I remember thinking at the time what a different world this would have been if they'd been the dominant gospels, rather than the ones we've seen in the New Testament. Elaine Pagels, one of the foremost authorities on the Gnostic gospels, is a professor at Princeton, my alma mater. I was fortunate enough to badger her into a private tutorial, so that I could learn more about them.
After Jesus's death, Christianity was a mess --- people believed all sorts of different things and studied many different gospels. One group, the Gnostic Christians, felt that being baptized was a good beginning, but that to know God, you have to know yourself. Or in other words, there's a little bit of divinity in all of us, coded and hidden...and it's up to each of us to figure out how to get it out. The Gnostics felt that religion was something that by definition had to be personal --- and that if you simply believed what others told you to believe or said the right words during a church service or just got baptized, it wasn't enough to reach spiritual fulfillment. Above all else, the Gnostics said, ask questions. Don't believe everything you're told; don't assume that just because someone says "This is the way it should be done" that he or she is right.
As you can imagine, this sent the early Christian church into a tizzy -- and the Gnostic gospels were labeled heretical, and disappeared...until 1945, when two brothers dug up a jar while looking for fertilizer in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and found fifty-one of those gospels. In the meantime, Irenaeus --- the bishop of Lyons --- codified the Church by deciding that there would be four main gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and laying the cornerstones of the Nicene Creed. In doing that, Irenaeus said: "Believe this, and you're Christian. If you don't believe this, you're not." Now, there are a lot of good reasons --- political and religious --- why Orthodox Christianity had to reject the Gnostic movement in order to solidify its own beliefs...but something else was lost along with those gospels: the belief that people might reach spiritual enlightenment in a variety of ways, rather than one "right" way.
"If you bring forth what is within you," Jesus says, in the Gospel of Thomas, "what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." Sounds like a riddle, right? But it's actually pretty simple: the potential to free yourself --- or ruin yourself --- is entirely up to you. Which gets pretty interesting when you're talking about a condemned man who happens to think that donating his heart to the sister of his victim is the way to save himself.
Q: In your acknowledgments you say that "it's very hard to write about religion responsibly." Why do you think that's so, and do you think it's specific to religious culture in the United States?
JP: In this country, which was founded by people seeking religious freedom, there isn't just the chance to practice what you want --- there's also the freedom of speech to preach it. The rise of the Evangelical movement in particular shows the difference between following one's religion and feeling obligated to save the souls of others who haven't found the same spiritual enlightenment you have. To the preacher, the act of trying to convert someone is doing that person a favor. To those who don't wish to be converted, however, it's very intrusive. To that end, it's really hard to write about religion without preaching --- but instead, with the intention to get people to understand why they believe what they do, and whether that necessarily means everyone else's beliefs are rendered null and void.
It's interesting: I interviewed rabbis and priests and ministers for this book, and every last one of them was fantastic and admitted that they don't really know which religion, if any, is the "right" one --- and that there may be a lot of ways to reach spiritual enlightenment...but that open-mindedness does not always filter down through the congregations, unfortunately! People who pick up CHANGE OF HEART aren't going to find me preaching to them --- because, as the book suggests, what I believe isn't necessarily what they have to believe or should believe --- but they will find me asking them to think hard about their beliefs.
Q: This is a provocative book and will no doubt be controversial. What do you hope this novel might add to conversations about religion and capital punishment?
JP: I hope that instead of looking at religion as a set of absolutes, people who read CHANGE OF HEART might look at the book as a chance to start a conversation. As for the death penalty, I hope while exploring the reasons that capital punishment is allegedly good for us, we can be honest enough to admit those explanations don't always stand up to logic --- which means that if we keep capital punishment on the law books, we have to admit that it may not be fair, or cheaper, or a deterrent...but instead a way for us to permanently exclude from society someone who we think doesn't belong there with us.
Q: You constructed this story by interweaving the narratives of four main characters --- June, Michael, Lucius, and Maggie. How difficult is it to juggle those four voices? Did you find yourself naturally wanting to give equal time to each character, or did you feel inclined to stay with one longer?
JP: When I write a book in multiple narratives, there is always one or two that are easier than others. In CHANGE OF HEART, Maggie was by far the most fun to write --- she has a terrific, easy, funny voice. June was the most painful, and the one that caught me most unawares. When I as a writer thought I knew how I felt about capital punishment, I'd write one of June's sections and flip-flop. Lucius was enjoyable, too, because he's not your typical prisoner, and because he's an instrument through which we get to hear and see Shay. Michael was the hardest for me --- probably because he was the least open-minded at first!
Q: Why did you decide not to write from Shay's point of view?
JP: Maggie, Michael, Lucius, and June correspond with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Shay, as the messianic character, does not have his own voice in a "gospel" --- and neither does Jesus, in the New Testament.
Q: A lot of work and research has been done recently on "restorative justice," a mutual healing process where victims and offenders meet face-to-face. Do you think that this is a credible way of dealing with serious criminals?
JP: I think in many cases, what a victim wants more than anything is to hear that the perpetrator is sorry. And also, in many cases, the perpetrator needs to be able to say that to the victim and his or her family in order to move on. It certainly won't work in all situations --- as you see in CHANGE OF HEART --- but I wish it was more prevalent in prison settings. To me, a successful restorative justice meeting is a better indicator of a change of heart for an inmate, and fosters more healing, than a life sentence where no reconciliation ever occurs.
Q: What's next for you?
JP: HANDLE WITH CARE --- the 2009 novel, which is about a wrongful birth suit. These cases are pretty fascinating --- it involves a parent suing her OB for not being told earlier that a child was going to be severely impaired. Most parents who sue love their kids very much...but want to give them the best lives possible, which is very expensive given the level of physical impairment, so they sue. However, it means getting up in front of a jury and saying that if you'd known your child was going to be this handicapped, you would never have had the baby. Not only is that emotionally devastating, but it usually creates a lawsuit that circles back to questions of abortion rights, and who gets to decide what sort of life is or isn't worth living. At what point should an OB counsel termination? Should a parent have the right to make that choice? How handicapped is too handicapped? As you can see, lots of thorny moral and ethical questions in this one --- which is why I love it!
In HANDLE WITH CARE the stakes are a bit higher, because the OB --- Piper Reece --- and the mom --- Charlotte O'Keefe --- are best friends...until Charlotte's daughter is born with osteogenesis imperfecta type III, a very severe form of brittle bone disease. These are children who, literally, will have hundreds of breaks over the course of a lifetime; you can lift up your infant and break her back; she can roll over and break her ribs. Thematically, the book explores the things that break apart in times of stress: bones, friendships, families.
• Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.
Back to top.
AUTHOR TALK
 March 9, 2007
Jodi Picoult has made a name for herself writing poignant novels that address many of today's contemporary social issues, such as date rape in THE TENTH CIRCLE and medical ethics in MY SISTER'S KEEPER. Her latest work, NINETEEN MINUTES, tackles the timely and controversial topic of school shootings. In this interview, Picoult explains why, as a parent, she was drawn to this subject and describes the extensive and eye-opening research she conducted in preparation for writing the book. She also compares similar themes in her works and offers words of advice to younger readers.
Question: What drew you to the subject of a school shooting for the premise of a novel?
Jodi Picoult: As a mom of three, I've seen my own children struggle with fitting in and being bullied. It was listening to their experiences, and my own frustrations, that led me to consider the topic. I also kept thinking about how it's not just in high school where we have this public persona that might be different from what we truly feel inside...everyone wonders if they're good enough, smart enough, pretty enough, no matter how old they are. It's an archetypical moral dilemma: do you act like yourself, and risk becoming an outcast? Or do you pretend to be someone you're not, and hope no one finds out you're faking?
Q: How did you go about conducting research for NINETEEN MINUTES? Given the heart-wrenching and emotional topic of the book, in what ways was the research process more challenging than for your previous novels?
JP: This book was VERY hard to research. I actually began through my longtime legal research helper, who had a colleague that had worked in the FBI and put me in touch with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office --- the people who investigated the Columbine shootings. I spoke with them, and they sent me DVDs and material that had never been made available to the public, which helped a bit to get into the mindset of the shooters. The next contact I made was with a woman who served as a grief counselor to the families who lost children at Columbine. However, I really wanted to talk to a school shooting survivor...and yet I didn't want to cause anyone undue pain by bringing up what will always be a difficult subject.
I was actually in Minneapolis, doing a reading, when the Red Lake shootings occurred. It was the most surreal feeling: there I was in a hotel, writing a scene in the book, and on the TV next to me was a reporter saying exactly what I was typing into my fiction. I went to the bookstore event that night and was telling folks about the way my two worlds had collided...and a woman came up to me afterward. She knew someone who'd survived the Rocori shootings in MN and was willing to put me in touch with her. Through that connection, I not only spoke with two teachers who shared with me their story of the shooting...but also a young man whose friend died that day. It was his commentary that shook me the most --- as a writer and a parent --- and that became the most important research I did for this book.
Q: What facts did you uncover during your research that might surprise readers whose knowledge of school shootings comes solely from media coverage?
JP: Although the media is quick to list the "aberrant" characteristics of a school shooter, the truth is that they fit all teens at some point in their adolescence! Or in other words -- these kids who resort to violence are not all that different from the one living upstairs in your own house, most likely --- as scary as that is to imagine. Two other facts that surprised me: for many of these shooters, there is the thinnest line between suicide and homicide. They go to the school planning to kill themselves and decide at the last minute to shoot others, too. And that, psychologically, a single act of childhood bullying is as scarring emotionally as a single act of sexual abuse.
From the point of view of the survivors, I remember being stunned when this young man I interviewed said that afterward, when his parents were trying to be solicitous and ask him if he needed anything, he turned away from them...because he was angry that they hadn't been like that yesterday, BEFORE.
Historically, one of the most upsetting things I learned was that after Columbine, more than one family was told that their child was the first to be killed. It was theoretically supposed to offer them comfort ("my child went first, and didn't suffer") but backfired when several families realized they'd been told the same thing.
Q: What appealed to you about bringing back two characters from previous novels: defense lawyer Jordan McAfee and detective Patrick DuCharme? Why the romantic resolution for Patrick this time?
JP: Okay, I'm just going to admit it to the world: I have a crush on Patrick DuCharme. And of course, he DIDN'T get the girl at the end of PERFECT MATCH. So I really wanted him to star in another story, where he was front and center. (For those really savvy readers who want to torture themselves with unanswered questions -- scroll back to Chapter 1 of NINETEEN MINUTES and do the math: how old is Nina's little girl? And how long ago was PERFECT MATCH? Hmm....) As for Jordan --- as soon as I realized that I had a murder trial in New Hampshire, I started thinking of who might defend Peter. And Jordan happened to be free...! It's always great fun to bring a character back, because you get to catch up on his/her life; and you don't have to reinvent the wheel --- you already know how he speaks, acts, thinks.
Q: In NINETEEN MINUTES, Lewis Houghton is a college professor whose area of expertise is the economics of happiness. Does such a profession actually exist? How does Lewis's job relate to the story as a whole?
JP: It does exist! There are economics professors who run statistics about how different elements of a person's life (marriage, sexual orientation, salary, etc.) can add to or detract from overall happiness, by giving those elements a dollar value. Lewis's equation --- that happiness equals reality divided by expectations --- is from real research. However, I sort of fudged the other equation he devises: that expectation divided by reality equals hope. As for how the profession relates to the story -- well, you have to love the irony of a guy who studies happiness for a living and yet isn't aware of the discontent simmering beneath his own roof.
Q: As the mother of three children, was the subject of popularity and the cruel ways in which children often treat one another a difficult one for you to address?
JP: It is always hardest for me to write a book that has kids in it close to my kids' ages --- and NINETEEN MINUTES does. I think that every parent has probably experienced bullying in some form --- either from the POV of the bully or the victim --- so it's a pretty universal subject. But in many ways, watching my children as they struggled to find their own place in the social hierarchy of school did make them guinea pigs for me, as I was writing the book. I know that many of my readers are the age of the young characters in this book, and over the years, some have written me to ask if I'd write a book about bullying.
But it wasn't until I began to connect what kids experience in school with how adults treat other adults who are somehow different that I began to piece together the story. Discrimination and difference at the high school level will never end until the adults running these schools can go about their own lives without judging others for their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. How ridiculous is it that America prides itself on being a melting pot, when --- as Peter says in the novel --- that just means it makes everyone the same?
Q: Did you have the surprise ending in mind when you began writing NINETEEN MINUTES, or did it evolve later in the process?
JP: As with all my books, I knew the ending before I wrote the first word.
Q: You're the author of fourteen novels. As you write more and more books, is it harder to come up with ideas? How do you know when an idea is the right one?
JP: The right idea is the one you can't stop thinking about; the one that's in your head first thing in the morning. The ideas choose me, not the other way around. And as for a shortage (I'm knocking on wood, here), I haven't faced that yet. I could tell you what the next four books I'm writing will address.
Q: You once remarked about your previous novel, MY SISTER'S KEEPER, that "there are so many shades of gray in real life." How might this statement also apply to NINETEEN MINUTES?
JP: It's funny you should compare NINETEEN MINUTES to MY SISTER'S KEEPER because I see them as very similar books --- they are both very emotional, very gut-wrenching, and they're situations that every parent dreads. And like the moral and ethical complications of MY SISTER'S KEEPER, you have a kid in NINETEEN MINUTES who does something that, on the surface, is absolutely devastating and destructive and will end the lives of others. But --- given what these characters have endured --- can you blame them? Do I condone school shootings? Absolutely not. But I can understand why a child who's been victimized might feel like he's justified in fighting back. I also think it's fascinating to look at how two good parents might find themselves with a child they do not recognize --- a child who does something they can't swallow. Do you stop loving your son just because he's done something horrible? And if you don't, do you start hating yourself? There are so many questions raised by NINETEEN MINUTES --- it's one big gray area to wallow in with your book group!
Q: Many of your books center on topics that are front and center in the headlines. Is it important for you to not only entertain readers with a riveting storyline but to challenge them to think about timely and often controversial topics? Why do you suppose you have gravitated toward this type of storytelling?
JP: I think that sometimes when we don't want to talk about issues that are hard to discuss or difficult to face, it's easier to digest it in fiction instead of nonfiction. I mean, no one goes into their bookstore and says, "Hey, can I read the most recent book about the sexual molestation of kids!?" but if you pick up a novel that has that as its center, you will become involved with the characters and the plot and find yourself dissecting the issue without even realizing it. Fiction allows for moral questioning, but through the back door. Personally, I like books that make you think --- books you're still wondering about three days after you finish them; books you hand to a friend and say "Read this, so we can talk about it." I suppose I'm just writing the kind of novel I like to read!
Q: In the Acknowledgements section, you write: "To the thousands of kids out there who are a little bit different, a little bit scared, a little bit unpopular: this one's for you." What might readers, particularly younger readers, take from this book and apply to their own lives?
JP: If I could say one thing to the legions of teens out there who wake up every morning and wish they didn't have to go to school, it would be this --- and I'm saying it as both a mom and a writer: Stay the course. You WILL find someone like you; you WILL fit in one day. And know that even the cool kids, the popular kids, worry that someone will find out their secret: that they worry about fitting in, just like you do.
© Copyright 2007, Atria Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
 April 9, 2004
Jodi Picoult, author of MY SISTER'S KEEPER,, talks to Bookreporter.com's Bethanne Kelly Patrick and Carol Fitzgerald about why she chose the plot, her thoughts on her characters and what made her cry while she was writing. She also shares a glimpse at her next book, which is a work-in-progress.
BRC: What made you choose to write a book with a plot that concerns genetic planning, namely with one child being conceived as a possible donor for another?
JP: I stumbled over this idea by accident while I was researching my last novel, SECOND GLANCE. That book involved the VT eugenics project --- namely, how Vermont was one of twenty-six states in the US in the 1920s and 1930s that had a law on the books to sterilize people they felt were degenerate. When Hitler praised these laws during WWII, funding dried up --- as did the American Eugenics Society. The organization that moved into its corporate headquarters, believe it or not, is the Human Genome Project. In many ways, this incredibly advanced science has the potential to be "our" eugenics project, if it's used incorrectly.
I found an article about a family that was the first one in the US to conceive a child as a bone marrow match for an older, ill sibling. The newborn's cord blood stem cells were given to his sister; she went into remission; it's been three years. Happy ending, right? Well, I started to wonder what might happen if that sister goes OUT of remission --- if the brother would feel morally responsible. I wondered how he'd feel if his parents mentioned that he was conceived because his sister was sick. Of course, I was flashing forward, and offering the worst-case scenario ... but it seemed like such a heavy load to lay on a child. I started thinking about what that child might be like as a teenager --- an age when you normally try to figure out who you really are --- and so Anna Fitzgerald, and her family, were born.
BRC: How did you research this topic? Where did you begin? In the course of your research did you ever feel this story was too emotionally painful to write?
JP: I started in my own life, which is very rare for me. My middle son, Jake, was diagnosed at age 5 with a cholesteatoma --- a very rare, benign tumor that grows from the inside of the ear. It's not cancerous, but it will burrow into your brain and kill you if you don't get it out ... and it's an awfully aggressive tumor. The typical treatment involves removing the ear canal wall, making it easy to remove subsequent growths --- but also rendering the child deaf in that ear. My husband and I decided to go with a more experimental treatment instead --- one that would require extra surgeries for Jake, but might preserve some of his hearing. In three years time, he was diagnosed with tumors in BOTH ears ... and he had ten surgeries. Now, at age ten, he is a happy, healthy guy who is deaf in his left ear and has hearing somewhere in the bottom-normal range in his right ear. It's something we look back on now ... but for a while there, we were used to dropping everything at an instant to take Jake in for surgery; hospitals became a comfortable place; our other children learned that their lives came second to Jake's illness.
All this played heavily in the writing of MY SISTER'S KEEPER --- as did the basic feeling I had as a mom: that I would have done anything to keep Jake from having one more surgery. Sara, in MY SISTER'S KEEPER, would say the same about Kate.
From there, research became twofold: speaking to oncologists and oncology patients (as well as their parents), and to attorneys about medical emancipation. You'd be surprised --- talking to pediatric cancer patients is remarkable, because they are all so amazingly upbeat. It's as if they know that they've got to make the most of the time they have here --- every time I interviewed one, I'd come away amazed and inspired.
I didn't get emotionally overwhelmed writing this book initially, because I'd known all along there weren't going to be any happy endings. But then I got to the end of the book and was so upset about finishing it that I actually called an oncology nurse, asking her if there might be a different ending --- a medical miracle. I won't give it away for you, but rest assured: I cried the whole time I was working on it.
BRC: Did the direction your characters took surprise you, or do you typically have a plot etched out when you start?
JP: The interesting thing about MY SISTER'S KEEPER was that I realized almost immediately I needed more than one narrator. Everyone has a point of view in this book, and I thought you deserved to hear why they all feel the way they do. It felt like patching together a quilt of different voices: one alone wasn't going to keep you warm, but when you hear the whole symphony of their emotions, you are able to fully understand the conundrum this family is facing. Although I hear that this book is a real page-turner, it always felt to me like a character study ... of seven characters! There were moments in the book that surprised me --- for example, what happens to Brian on the witness stand --- but for the most part, I knew the beginning and the endpoint of the book and let the characters tell me how to get from point A to point B.
BRC: MY SISTER'S KEEPER is the perfect title for this book. How soon in the writing process did you come up with it?
JP: I should lie, and tell you I'm naturally brilliant and had the title from Day One. In truth, I'd finished the book and was completely clueless. Then, one morning I was walking three miles with my friend at 5:30 AM and talking about the book ... and suddenly the title was there on the tip of my tongue. Who says exercise doesn't spark creativity?!?!
BRC: One of the most remarkable things about this novel is how many voices you write in and keep distinct. Talk about your process, your challenges.
JP: When I write, I get bored easily --- so I need something that keeps me on my toes. That might be flashing around between time periods, or testing out different narratives --- or in this case, differentiating seven of them. I like trying on different voices, it's a little like being a medium. Some of them are naturally more difficult than others. Interestingly, for me, the men are pretty easy, and feel very distinct to me. I had more trouble with Sara --- because I knew people would find her a hard-edged character, and I had to somehow make her matter-of-fact without incurring hatred. As for the process, it's really just a matter of slipping into someone else's skin. Before I'd start writing, I'd consider who was speaking and how the plot was affecting them at that moment ... and then I'd step back and let him/her talk.
BRC: Sara not only makes a decision that marks her, she's let the rest of her life slip away because of her daughter's illness. Talk about this, if you will. Did you speak with parents who have had this happen to them?
JP: I wish you all could speak to the parents that I spoke with. You'd expect them to be martyrs, but they're not --- they're just very realistic about their expectations and their challenges. They celebrate the hours their child is alive past whatever date the doctors anticipated; they gear up for the moments when there's a crisis. They expect the other shoe to drop, even when everything's going well, because they've seen it happen before ... and when they talk about the past, the markers for them are the scary moments, not the smooth ones. The thing is, these parents --- every single one of them --- would suffer through another lifetime punctuated with trauma if it meant getting a few more terrific, normal days with their ill child. If you asked any of these parents about Sara's decision, they'd all say the same thing: decision implies that you had a choice --- and when you love someone, that doesn't even enter into the equation.
BRC: The bond between Anna and Kate is strong. Do you believe it would be equally strong without Kate's illness --- or are the two girls defined by the roles this illness has forced on them?
JP: I'm sure that any two sisters so inexplicably intertwined as Anna and Kate are would have a stronger bond than some other sisters --- but they've also sort of flirted their whole lives with the knowledge that they might not both always be here. As Anna says, are you still a sister even when yours dies? The interesting parallel for me is to hold Anna and Kate, who are inseparable in so many ways, up to Julia and Izzy --- identical twins who are as different as two women could be.
BRC: Interestingly enough, you don't go too far into medical ethics, choosing instead to explore family dynamics. Talk about why you chose this path.
JP: That's the very reason I wrote this book. I'm no ethicist, and I have no right to lecture to anyone about what's right and wrong. However, I CAN offer my opinion ... and it's that we're on the cusp of a remarkable science that is growing by leaps and bounds scientifically, yet hasn't been addressed from an emotional standpoint. For every "case" we see that involves stem cells, there's going to be a family behind it --- maybe one like the Fitzgeralds --- and to assume that this science is a medical issue, or even a political one like it will be this November, is awfully shortsighted and facile. I wanted, basically, to hold up a medical case involving stem cell research for your inspection --- and make you realize that behind every case is a living, breathing, conflicted person.
BRC: One could argue that Jesse is the most damaged character. Or is he simply the most overlooked? Or are those one and the same?
JP: Oh, let me wax rhapsodic about Jesse! I loved writing him (which means, I think, that I was a teenage male juvenile delinquent in a former life). In this book, he's certainly overlooked and he's certainly damaged goods, but most importantly, he's punishing himself. He learned early that he couldn't be Kate's hero; he assumed therefore that he had to be the villain. What Jesse is most afraid of, I think, is being loved. He's always believed that he has nothing worthy to give in return, ever since his marrow was rejected for donation. It's this that makes his reconciliation with Brian so much sweeter.
BRC: Your metaphors slip beautifully into one another --- fire, stars, bruises, old wounds, etc. Do you start with some, or do they develop as you write? Are you often surprised to see them woven into your words?
JP: Sometimes I go back and read one of my books and just stop at a sentence, thinking, "Gosh ... that was awfully good!" When I'm writing it, however, I'm never taking stock of it as it happens. I knew, because of Brian's profession, that I would be using star metaphors and did a little research on the cosmos before writing; I like to think that it naturally bleeds out into metaphor and simile. Oops, look at that. I used the word "bleeds." You see?!
BRC: Talk to us about the subplot of Campbell and Julia. What made you create a character like him as her attorney?
JP: The best thing about Campbell, of course, is that he's more immature than Anna. And he's the ultimate escape artist, so actually committing himself to his client is nothing short of a miracle. Plus, helping Anna get the rights to her own body is a bittersweet substitute for his own lack of control over his personal medical history. The plot between Julia and Campbell derives from a misunderstanding --- and from each of them thinking they couldn't be what the other person needed. This resonates with the feelings that lead Anna to hire an attorney in the first place. But on a more basic level --- Campbell provides comic relief and sarcasm in a book that is often very heavy emotionally and psychologically.
BRC: What do you feel is worse: to intentionally conceive a child to use her, or to raise a child and neglect her?
JP: What a loaded question. I would think that it's worse to raise and neglect a child. I hate seeing parents who have children as accessories ... you know, the ones who trot them out in pretty holiday outfits but never actually sit down and ask them to play Candyland or talk about what foods at the school cafeteria are the most rubbery. If you are planning to use a child as a donor for another child, you are most likely making that decision out of utter love --- and that's a better family to be born into.
BRC: Does this book represent a departure for you in any way? If so, explain. If not, why?
JP: I think I've heard every new book of mine called a "departure." I suppose the only constant in my writing is that I do something different every time. I don't personally see this as a departure at all --- in fact, I think it's the book most similar to THE PACT in terms of wrenching drama and depth of character. What I DO think is that this book is going to reach a lot of people who might not have otherwise read my novels --- because it manages to reach out and grab you right from the gorgeous cover, and because it's the kind of book people will be talking about at the water cooler.
BRC: Which character did you find most difficult to write?
JP: Oddly, Anna. She was one of my favorites, but there was a very fine line between making her sound like a brat and making her sympathetic. Also, she has a secret for most of this book, and I couldn't spill it too early.
BRC: Both of us feel that the Epilogue in the book is superfluous. What made you decide it was needed?
JP: Because otherwise I would have people writing to me, begging to know what happens! I think, given the outcome of this book --- and the supreme amount of Kleenex needed to finish it --- the reader deserves to know how the family is holding up in the distant future. And they need to know if the sacrifice made was, ultimately, a good one.
BRC: People are saying that MY SISTER'S KEEPER is your best book to date. Why do you think this is being said?
JP: Um, I'm not sure, but I'm awfully glad they're saying it. :) What I keep hearing is a) "I never cry but boy oh boy, did I SOB..." and b) "It's your fault I'm exhausted/haven't cleaned the house/took a sick day off work today, because I couldn't put the book down last night." Those are both fabulous compliments, for any author. I suppose the comments go back to the accessibility of the novel --- the narrators are infectious, the characters are people you care about, and there are no easy answers from page one --- which brings you into page-turner territory. I also think that it's the kind of book you really want your friend to finish at the same time, so that you can dissect the ending and the issues raised.
BRC: If readers were going to go back and read your earlier work after reading MY SISTER'S KEEPER, where do you think they should start? Is there an order you would suggest reading these books in, as they are not series titles?
JP: Most people who've read me started with THE PACT or PLAIN TRUTH. I think, personally, that you can jump in any ol' time and go backwards or forwards. If you like MY SISTER'S KEEPER read THE PACT next, and then SALEM FALLS (because there's character crossover) --- then you can go wherever you like. If you've enjoyed the multiple narrators, try SONGS OF THE HUMPBACK WHALE; it has five voices too.
BRC: What can you tell us about VANISHING ACTS, your work-in-progress? And when can readers expect to see it?
JP: VANISHING ACTS will arrive in the Spring of 2005. It's the story of a woman named Delia Hopkins, who was raised by her single dad after her mom's death. She's lived in NH her whole life and, at 30, has a search and rescue dog service, a four-year-old daughter, and is on the cusp of marrying the little girl's dad --- an on-again-off-again boyfriend. As she's planning the wedding, however, she begins to have memories of a life that she can't recall ever living. She does a little digging --- and discovers that she was stolen during a custody visit at age four, moved across country by her dad, given a new identity ... and that her mom is alive and well and living in Phoenix.
I love this book because it's really about whom we trust to tell us the story of ourselves before we are old enough to remember it --- and it's also about the very nature of memory: ALL memory is really a fiction, recreated from the actual event --- so who's to say that we're ever even telling ourselves the truth about our past? And if that isn't enough to whet your appetite, it includes a glimpse of life up-close-and-personal in a hard-core jail system --- including how drugs get smuggled into jail, how to make your own zip gun, and how to kill someone with a soup ladle. Aren't you glad you asked?? :)
• Click here now to buy this book from Amazon.
© Copyright 1996-2008, Bookreporter.com. All rights reserved.
Back to top.
|
