Alright everyone, it’s that time again. The WF Forum Book Club is on to month two of the hopefully long and illustrious career of reviewing and critically looking at literature from all across the board. And for this month’s surprising selection… Carrie Fisher’s autobiographical tale of her addiction and mental disorders, Wishful Drinking. This book seems to pride itself on being completely non-standard in approach. It’s a stand-up comedy in novella form. This inherently leads to a number of rules broken in the world of literature, but they are broken with full-intention and purpose. But I want the conversations of this novel to dig into these craft choices on their own. As before, I’ve sectioned out a few questions between literary elements and craft analysis. I thoroughly enjoyed the deep and structured responses of the last book club, and am excited to get started on this month’s conversation. Without further ado, a few questions for you. Literary: 1). Fisher spends a large amount of her book talking about her lack of memories from mental illness and substance abuse cocktails, yet grabs the reader with specific details. How reliable of a narrator is she really? She may truly believe all of the facts she puts down are true, but sometimes the sense that bits of sanity are muddled in fabrication comes around behind the words. 2). The act centers a lot of the humor around current events at the time of its publication. How much does the narrative suffer for referring to many specific people or events in present tense that have past some years back? Does a novel that implements such relevant topics at the time fade just as quickly? Critical Analysis: 1). The perspective is known as stream of consciousness. It’s a rather rare form because of its affinity for needlessly diving into tangential subjects to the narrative. Since this autobiography is designed off of a stand-up performance, doesn’t it work well? 2). Fisher often references the reader directly. This is commonly used to draw the reader in as a character to the story, as if the reader was listening in to her speak to them in person. What effect did that have on you as a reader? Were you drawn in, or was it over-the-top and annoying? 3). The descriptions of her life, though presented comedically, often dives down the roads of very serious subjects. This de-centers our views on many of the subjects she’s trying to talk about in her life, chiefly addiction and Bi-Polar disorder or depression. This is common in stand-up to throw off the listeners at that moment. Does this maintain its effectivity in the slower form of reading? 4). Finally, the chapters take the form of individual tangents on what Fisher is trying to tell about her life. They don’t necessarily fall on a chronological scale, but do make a sort of progression. This obfuscated presentation of her life does a good job of keeping the story active and making the narrative match the subject matter, but it creates more confusion in the process. Does this create difficulty that may lose readers in the process? I want to dig into that long section about the families of Hollywood for this one especially. Again, thank you all who participate in our little book club. I hope you enjoyed this book as much as I did and I’m excited to hear all of your thoughts on it.
Okay. So. First things first, I loved this book immensely. I think Carrie Fisher was absolutely breathtaking and her writing reflects so much of her personality and resonates hardcore with me. This is actually something I thought about while in the middle of reading. She is reliable in a sense, but mostly I took it as a book for entertaining more than a book of literary quality. She's performing throughout it. She even mentions the fact this book is a show, so she's bound to be including some embellishments along the way. I find that most people telling funny stories tend to exaggerate. While there is some exaggeration in her writing, she's doing it purposefully almost as a way to jab at the reader for looking in at her life while she's just trying her best to live it. "You wanted this and I want a paycheck, so here you go, nerds." But her cynicism is mixed in with subtle (and not so subtle) references to the build up of sadness over the course of her life. I feel like by the end of the book she's tired of talking about herself, so she's just getting it all down as quickly as she can and it ends with her rather viciously poking fun at the thing which made her such a star. I don't think the timeliness of the book has aged badly at all. It wasn't that long ago (don't give me statistics, I know I'm reaching) that Bush was in office, and I think a lot of people reading this book will remember some of those topics. I think some humor is always going to be dated ("What's the deal with airplane food?") regardless of how relevant to modern day it is. I definitely laughed out loud in real life during some of her discussion of the moments she had (it blows my mind she spoke to Cary Grant on the phone three times). I think this is stream of consciousness to a point because she circles it around to the beginning when we get to the end. Ties it all together, I mean. She starts out talking about her dead friend, and ends it essentially with the dead friend. The tangential subjects along the way also tend to gravitate back to what the chapters are individually about, while still managing to go into the next ones without needing too much of a transition between them. This is just my opinion, of course, because I do agree there are stream of consciousness elements to it, but I think for it to be a truly free flowing stream, the thoughts wouldn't be as connected as they are. Personally, I loved this device. I loved it because I really felt like I was able to sit down and have a conversation with her and it made me want to listen to more of her (I'll probably buy her other books). She's got a similar sense of humor to mine (I'm a touch more sarcastic, but I only saw what she put on paper, so maybe she'd kick my ass, I don't know), and when she discussed certain parts of her mental illness, it hit home with me and my own struggles. I think it was highly effective to bring the reader into her story the way she did. I think the sections of heft are easier to handle because they're surrounded by humor. There is, and this is me reading way more into the book than necessary and I'm going to get pretty personal here, but there is a sort of desperation behind her words when she discusses her manic depression that I have experienced. A desperation to be understood and for the people around you to know that this is not something you can control, it's just happening and you're unable to escape it no matter how hard you try to, so that it doesn't overtake you and leave you behind in the mess it's making. When she talks about her overdose, I found myself thinking of my own, and when she says, "my only intent was to feel better--which is to say, not to feel at all," I had to set the book aside because it was like someone put to words what I'd felt at the time and have struggled to explain. Sorry, tangent. It appears I have something in common with her, haha. But in answer to your question, I don't think it slows anything down too much because it picks right back up almost immediately and you have to kind of think about the stuff she's said after you've passed it. I was absolutely lost when she was talking about the families of Hollywood until we got to the point she was making at the end of it. I couldn't follow that at all, but it was fun for me. It reminded me of my mother telling me a story but realizes I need context, so she gives me backstory, but then needs to give me the backstory of that backstory, so by the time we reach the end of everything, I finally understand what the point of it all was even though it took four hours to get there. Thank you for doing such a fantastic job running this. I'm glad I could keep up with the book this time around. It was a quick read, but well worth it to me.
Well here I go! Overall I enjoyed this book, and I walked away with more respect for Carrie Fisher than I did previously. I can't think of her as just 'Princess Leia' anymore. That... is a good question and not one I feel like I can give a good answer to. I'm not the type to question the narrator, so I tended to just take whatever I was given and run with it. But as someone who didn't doubt the narrator, the narration worked for me. I never got the sense I was missing something. Does it center a lot of it's humor around current events? Speaking as someone who was young enough that 'current events' flew over my head at the time of publication, I definitely caught a couple references to the Presidency and stuff (I laughed aloud at the part where the kid would run in and fart and leave his dad sitting in a cloud of Stink. Just like what Bush has done with the presidency.) but it felt like the focus was more on how it was to grow up and live in celebrity culture. Which maybe celebrity culture has changed, but it's more about Carrie's celebrity culture so I'd call it a feature, not a bug. It seemed to me most of the humor was derived from Carrie's ridiculous life and I wouldn't call that dated. I think the perspective worked well. I do wonder how hard it was for the poor editor to wrangle her stand-up show into a quick breezy read like it is though. (Which I haven't seen so who knows, maybe it was easier than I expect.) While there were tangents, usually everything managed to tie back to what the chapter was about. It kept me reading along, hanging on every word. I'm not sure I 100% understand the question ('de-center' is throwing me off) so I'll just take this as a prompt and not a question lol. Carrie Fisher makes a joke out of her life and while I can see the humor of it, I also walked away from this book with a lot of sympathy and respect for Carrie. I'm the type of person to be able to see something as funny and tragic at the same time, so I could laugh along with the 'audience' when Carrie talks about having to rush home after her brother shot himself to flush the weed down the toilet, but also simultaneously see how that was a terrifying experience. I can see how it'd make it easier to swallow, talking about that sort of thing, because it's presented in a way you're not supposed to take it seriously. For the most part the narration didn't lose me, each chapter generally had a point even if it wasn't chronological. It did seem that most points were in chronological order, but the supporting details were pulled from all over. Her friend dying in bed next to her was an exception, but to me that had a feel of wanting to get it over with. Everyone wants to hear about it, she's gotta talk about it, get it out of the way and over with. The Hollywood families was the only part of the whole book where I did get fuzzy lol. The narration was entertaining but there were so many names I had a hard time keeping track of who-what-what? But I think I got the point she was trying to make, the 'Hollywood Inbreeding' thing.
I agree. There's something a bit more uncomfortable about the end than the beginning. I think the tone changed. Fisher seems to divert focus on the tragic in the early half of the novel to a lot of wacky comedy, but this stride deadens as the reader gets used to its methods, and what I think are its exaggerations as well. But then it turns more dark and cynical than anything, and I think we feel a bit more of the true bitterness Fisher has about that part of her life. I almost feel like its that stuff that she truly remembers, and the other things in the past she put together over time. This I find interesting. Is the stream of consciousness perspective truly built upon the purely tangential? I don't think it's so anarchistic. The novel, at its core, contains at least a partial narrative. I believe even such wildly flailing perspectives such as stream of consciousness has its meandering sets of controls, like a funnel taking in splashing material and eventually bringing it to the center. If you have suggestions of a purely free-flowing narrative that works, please let me know. I'm interested. I haven't listened to the stand-up yet, but I'm thinking is section is something great when done out loud and in-person, rather than on paper. Reason being is that you could probably see the physical movement of Fisher on the stage showing the mess of interconnected "inbreeding" involved in Hollywood royalty at the time. I have a feeling that this joke doesn't work in written form unless extended, but if it were extended it would take to much room and drown out the next act. Not my favorite block. You know, I wonder as well what it looked like i the first manuscript. My guess that it was a bitch and a half to try to cut down on what was drawn out too far and what was lengthened to try and fit some semblance of pacing. A lot of it is intentionally rambling, as that it is part of the joke itself, but editing must have been a nightmare. Or i could just be a carbon copy. Who know? Sorry, that's more of a literary theory term from Jaques Derrida. De-centralization of a concept is when you take something that's established as a cultural expectation or definition, and break from that in an unexpected manner. Like the traditionally accepted view of marriage as sign of devotion being broken down as in a prison concept. Fisher likes to do this especially in her first chapter with the family concept, as what family was to her was bizarrely constructed when compared to societal norms. I was able to do this too. I couldn't help feeling quite sad for her ordeals and inability to find the right doctor to help her with her mental disorders and addictions for so long. But I could still smile at the comedy she used for the jokes the broke down these hard topics. Thanks a lot guys for commenting!
My honest answer is something by Jack Kerouac. A lot of people consider On the Road to be the best example, but I think Desolation Angels fits that far better. It's a book I call a slow burner because it takes time to read it. But in my opinion it's worth your time.
The best word to describe this book is sardonic. I gave it three stars. It was ok, but I was expecting more than just a transcription of her stage show. As a result of it being lifted straight from that there are LOADS of em dashes in her writing, which mimics a conversational story telling style. It’s sort of a stream of consciousness narrative but not really... I can’t put my finger on why though. It clearly works for a performance but I don’t think it holds up very well as a book. Everything's sort of glossed over with self-deprecating jokes, and there's no real self-reflection or analysis. It seemed like whenever she got too close to something painful, she skirted around it or told it in such a way that felt like she was saying, "Ok, told you about that, got it out of the way, moving on...” I don’t know whether it’s a defence mechanism or something else, but there are so many points she could have delved a bit deeper. I’m not really sure what the point of the book is except to make money off the back of her stage show. It’s literally a transcription of her show as far as I’m aware. I also think she was trying too hard to be funny and the jokes don’t work in written form.This line... “You know, aphrodisiacs. Well, actually, Anglo-disiacs, because we’re white“ made my face contort in embarrassment for such a cringeworthy attempt at a joke. The relationship with her mother was interesting. Sometimes it seemed like she hated her and blamed her mother for a lot of things, and other times it seemed they were the best of friends.
From what I read in this book, Debbie Reynolds reminded me of my Grammy. My mom has stories about being raised by Grammy. If Debbie is as much like Grammy as I'm reading into it, you really just can't be mad at these people for the way they are. They are just... not fully in the same world as everybody else. Things just don't click the way they should. Grammy's a sweet lady and doesn't have a malicious bone in her body. My mom says that growing up she had to be the parent a fair amount because Grammy really didn't have the mental capability too. So if Debbie was like Grammy in that way-- I can see how that would cause mixed feelings. I mean 'your brother shot himself go be a dear and flush the weed' is pretty unique there lol.
I agree, it often felt subjects could be held onto and dived in a little further. The stories often felt encased in attempts at humor being used as a defense mechanism, which is one reason why I put down my first question. Can we entirely trust what she says? I feel there are a lot of half-truths, or single story sides that didn't show a lot of why things where falling apart. The humor became referential to subjects we had already heard, but they often felt like diversion. Her addictions and mental disorders were often made to feel like a comedy of errors, and only bits of the turmoil underneath showed through under a couple of off-hand remarks. I do think this is where we come to a stylistic choice though, where to keep the subject of the overall chapter in line with the pacing of a comedy show the description and "plot" of the scenes were sacrificed. I can see for some readers this works, yet for others it really cuts down the effect of the book. This seems like a fair attribution. I think Carrie Fisher probably inherited a lot of her mental difficulties from Debbie Reynolds, and emanated a lot of the same defenses, though their addictions were very different. It was unique, but honestly I thought this was one of the most believable parts of the entire book. The description and details, and the bizarre responses felt more on a confused human level than some of the other subjects. It caught the readers attention and held like a mini-narrative of its own.
Oh yeah it did feel very human and it was one of my favorite parts of the book. And then years later meeting up with the cabbie and getting asked to sign the bloody bandage. That part felt like a jab at how people react to celebrities, and when seeing that sort of thing through Carrie's eyes, it does seem kinda crazy. That was another thing I thought very interesting. The look into celebrity culture by someone who's lived and grown up in it. The part where Carrie talked about being embarrassed by her mom not getting smooched in a movie when she was younger. And Carrie's own, I'm not sure if it was 'delight' but maybe fascinated amusement? At being a PEZ dispenser. That one came up several times, and that was another very 'human' thing to me lol. So much merchandise with her face on it, I'd probably find one particular oddity to be especially fascinated by.
Those minor details really made the work come alive. In a craft analysis mindset, Fisher's best quality appears to be being able to bring in minor objects and details from the history and the scenes to make the reader associate with the story better. These minor details like the PEZ dispenser made large statements on the overall themes here. Particularly in that of being a product.
I found it hard to take this book seriously, to be honest. I've always liked Carrie Fisher as an actress, but I found her behaviour on many chat shows and in front of the camera as 'herself' to be squirmy, at best. She was not nearly as funny as she thought she was. I felt this book just extended that view for me. I kept wondering to myself: would this person have written this book, this way, if she hadn't been famous and the book hadn't been guaranteed to sell? I so badly wanted her to 'get real.' You can get real with humour, of course. And I wanted to truly know what the pressures of being a 'famous' Hollywood child was like, and what drew her into the various addictions she acquired, and how she coped with them. But this book just felt shallow and irritating, as if she was exploiting her own life's ups and downs as attention-seeking behaviour, rather than actual revelatory incidents and analysis. Hey, looky here, I'm the unpredictible Wild Child nobody understands. She actually seemed to lose interest in the process herself, as the book drew to a close—I felt it just faded, rather than concluded. Maybe she was too close to her own life to see it with any real perspective. She might not have been pressured into writing such an autobiographical book so prematurely, if she hadn't been 'Carrie Fisher.' In fact, she frequently pulled back from spilling any beans on herself, and instead spilled beans about—and took mean-spirited potshots at—other famous people as a diversionary tactic. I found her forced, flippant humour got old after a very short while. All in all, I wish she had been better advised about writing this book. I wish she'd been guided into focusing the book in a certain direction. Instead, she was apparently just encouraged to ramble, because hey, folks will buy the book, any book, written by a celebrity, that contains bean-spilling. I think she did lead an interesting life, which could have been fodder for a groundbreaking book. But I don't think this is what happened. It's not even a diary, because a diary wouldn't be so self-consciously written as a chat-show performance, because it wouldn't have been intended for publication. I would have preferred a diary. A real one. Sorry. This book didn't do it for me.
