Scott Turow discussed the fact that he has remained a practicing attorney even though he is a successful writer who could otherwise devote all of his time to writing novels. He explained what continues to draw him to the profession, and the kind of work he chooses to do that allows him to continue to represent clients and serve his readership. We also discussed the relationship between the lawyer and the writer. Both rely on language: the lawyer relies on words to make his case before a judge and jury; the novelist assembles words to reach his audience of readers . For this reason, both lawyers and novelists are, to some extent, natural storytellers.
And yet there are considerable differences. Lawyers, by training, have far less tolerance for ambiguity and emotional complexity, which represent the cornerstone of the novelist’s craft. Novelists deal in the world of open and messy narration, rolling a story out, plotted, but not necessarily decisive in its direction. Lawyers, by contract, look for final judgments and ultimtate resolutions, all contained within an argument that they need to win. The lawyer’s world is adversarial and external, while the novelist’s sole mission is to stimulate the senses, the inner workings of human beings and the complex interplay of conscience and spiritual conflict.
The extent and depth of the conversation with Scott Turow plus the questions and answers that followed leave little room for further comments on the substance of the evening. What should and I presume was noted by all was the contribution of Thane Rosenbaum whose probing and meaningful questions along with his comfortable demeanor resulted in both a relaxing and rewarding evening for both Scott Turow
and we the audience.
The skill of a good lawyer is to shape a story that will win the case, which often means reducing the story to information that is easily digestible to the jury. The information must not be too “messy” or contain ambiguity that would invite the jurors to open themselves to the case as humans, with all their prejudices, emotions, and preconceived notions. In some ways, the role of the novelist is to do the opposite–to invite the audience to use their human experience as they read and “experience” the story. Turow was never very clear about whether he uses novels as a way of connecting to his audience in a way that he cannot reach a jury. Whether as an artist or simply as a human he needs this outlet.
In addressing the complex interplay of conscience and spiritual conflict, many novelists, like Scott Turow, re-animate the same characters in different books, at different times, showing how their understanding of their own internal conflicts and the workings of their conscience have evolved. Rusty Sabitch is one character who reappears in Turow’s novels, and Turow spoke about his later perspective on his actions in earlier books. Rosenbaum’s novels, which are at times deeply disturbing and at other times raucously funny, seem to suspend this process, keeping the same characters or “like” characters in the same internal and external conflicts without evolving. Is that done by conscious choice and what does it say about the difference between the way the two novelists approach their craft?
Rosenbaum didn’t mention that professors are also natural storytellers, and that there are notable similarities between a lawyer’s role, a professor’s role, and a novelist’s role. In his job as a professor at Fordham–one of the most popular among students by the way–does he see other similarities between the professor and the novelist?
[...] 2006Entries (13) « Turow on the Lawyer as Writer New Photo Resource– Flickr.com [...]