A Plot in a Shoebox

     About a month and a half ago, I was reading The Debutante, by Kathleen Tessaro. It’s a mystery story, about two people who are sent to catalogue the contents of an old English house after the owner’s death and discover a locked room nobody seems to have known about, and inside it, hidden behind some children’s books, a shoebox filled with an odd assortment of mementoes. Instantly, we are transported back to the 1930s, and to the story of two beautiful and wealthy sisters, one of whom disappears without trace on the eve of the Second World War.

     I enjoyed the story, though at times I found the references to the Mitford sisters a little too obvious for comfort. Note to self: if you want to write a historical novel, by all means read up on the real-life protagonists of the era, but then make sure your own characters are wholly unique. It’s a bad sign when your reader is obliged to pretend they’ve never heard of Nancy Mitford in order to be able to concentrate on Baby Blythe!

     In fact, what interested me most in the whole novel was a short paragraph in the Author’s Note: in it, Tessaro explains how she originally wanted her two modern-day characters to find all the clues to the mystery in the Victoria and Albert Museum, in London, but then got bogged down in lengthy explanations and excessive details on the way the institution functioned. One evening, she complained about her difficulties to a fellow writer and friend of hers, who told her she needed to narrow the scope of her gaze: to consider, not an entire museum, but a box filled with a few choice items. And a week later, she handed Tessaro a shoebox, containing a pair of 1930s silver dancing shoes, a page torn from a newspaper, a photograph of a handsome sailor, a diamond Tiffany bracelet, an old badge from a girls’ boarding school, a bit of lace and a spoon. She told Tessaro she could incorporate a few or all of the objects into her story, and that they had to add up to the resolution of the mystery. Which is exactly what happened.

     Never mind the mystery of the locked room and what happened to Baby Blythe – that is what really fired my imagination! And it set me wondering about the creative process. The apparent insignificance and yet the utter magic of a shoebox containing a few random objects. And how an imaginative person can somehow make them all relate to each other and shed light on a bigger picture. The mystery/detective story is the most obvious way to exploit this method, with each item becoming a clue, a piece of the puzzle. But I think it could be extended to other literary genres – indeed I think that the shoebox, under various guises, has triggered any number of plots. How many authors have confessed that their novel was born from the desire to write about a house, a painting, a face, a garden, a ring, seen once and never forgotten? You take a little piece and little by little scratch the veneer to see what mystery lies beneath.

     One last comment: this shoebox method of constructing a plot reminds me of something the pianist-protagonist says in The Legend of 1900 (the movie based on Alessandro Baricco’s work). Born and reared on board the SS Virginian, 1900 has never set foot on land. When the ship docks in New York, his friend Max tries to convince him to come ashore and see the sights. For a while 1900 hesitates, clearly tempted. And then he turns away. When Max remonstrates with him, he answers with words to this effect: “New York – the whole world – is too huge to be fully known by a single man. At best, you know but a tiny part of it, and your world narrows correspondingly. With a piano, it is different: you have 88 keys, no more, no less. But with these, you can do whatever you like – there is no limit. You have infinity before you.”

© Florence Berlioz 2010


About Miss Darcy's Library

I love books - buying books, reading books, discussing books, and generally admiring them from all angles (except the e-book). I also love tea, roses, and my dogs, and seldom pass up an opportunity to slip them into the conversation.
This entry was posted in Quills and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A Plot in a Shoebox

  1. louise says:

    How interesting! Have you read Margaret Forster’s novel, The Memory Box? It’s exactly and quite literally based on the shoebox method that you mention! I also found the technique quite thought-provoking, even though M Forster uses it in a far too technical way in my opinion! xxxx (It’s not my best review, but in case you’re interested, see http://www.womensliterature.net/2010/02/the-memory-box-1999/ )

  2. Cécile says:

    Well, the fact that I’ve not read nor have ever heard of Nancy Mitford (I feel there is still so much I don’t know!!!) might not be a bad thing after all! It means I can read her book without pretending I’ve not heard of her! An interesting approach to reading new authors..

  3. Ha ha, that’s one way of looking at it!! And as it happens, you have heard of Nancy Mitford: she’s the one who wrote “Love in a Cold Climate” (remember, you watched the movie a few weeks ago? You were utterly disgusted because Linda dies…)

  4. Cécile says:

    Oh..right! So she actually takes biographies and uses them to make up stories of unrealistic characters or perhaps too similar to the people who actually existed?? Is that it??

  5. Well, Kathleen Tessaro’s story isn’t copied off anyone – the plot itself is the fruit of her own imagination and work. But the problem is that the research she did on the period influences her too much: firstly Baby is the name of one of the characters in “Tender is the Night”, by F. Scott Fitzgerald; secondly, the Blythe sisters call their parents Muv and Farve, which, as you know, is what Linda and her siblings call their parents in “Love in a Cold Climate”, and what Nancy Mitford and her siblings called their parents in real life. That kind of mannerism works in a novel like “Love in a Cold Climate” because it’s part of the general style and ambiance, but everybody knows where it comes from, so it can’t really work in any other context. I suppose Tessaro wanted to give her story a ring of authenticity by drawing on such well-known details of 1930s high society life. But in my opinion, it was a big mistake.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s