I’ve been sorting through old files and found all manner of oddity, including but not limited to any email sent or received since 1993; full backups of every website I have ever designed or administered; and the contents of the computer stolen from my house a decade or so ago. The lost manuscript? Several other books I have elected not to publish? The controversies and hatred that destroyed the magazine? Photographs of hundreds of people in various stages of embarrassing development and fashion?
I have it all, sitting right here in front of me.
Of course I’m not going to look at any of these things. My archives serve no clear purpose, except to clutter.
Though I have been reading old journal entries to piece together an essay on topics that have faded in memory. In 2003 I was apparently obsessing about not just my wardrobe but more pertinently, the ethics of narrative nonfiction. I was worried that publishing the stories eventually collected as Lessons in Taxidermy was somehow “wrong” – though I could not quite identify the nature of the crime.
The concerns centered on the notion that I had a clear understanding of the facts (what happened) and an imperfect grasp of the importance (why it happened, or what it means).
Looking back, the real danger appears to be that I was convinced of my own indifference to how other people feel about the events described. Feelings are sticky, sloppy, annoying. Someone hit you upside the head with a plank? I only want to know how many stitches you needed, not what you think about the scar.
Well, it was a good theory.
I thought – and still believe – that telling the truth, no matter how hard or frightening, is mandatory. When I published the book I was also young (or stupid) enough to think that truth was somehow illuminating – that incurable pain could be relieved with sufficient doses of honesty.
I was wrong.
While assembling the stories I was cautious, using only the elements beyond dispute. Everything in the book (aside from names) can be proved. I have the records. It all happened, exactly as stated. If you refer to witness accounts, medical files, or any other source, you will find that I did not elaborate, embroider, create.
Instead, I edited – leaving out years, events, people, and always, feelings. The most bitter fight I had with my publisher concerned a profound lack of adjectives.
At the time I was fixated on the question of who owned the story – my story. My body. My life. This is a reasonable line to follow; the problem is that a life is not a singular experience. People are entwined with each other. I may have been lonely, but I was not alone.
Somewhere underneath the burbling about ethics I was scared that I would hurt someone by telling the truth – but I didn’t let myself examine that problem.
Hurt? Try taunt. Torment. Enrage. Words like “destroy” might be too harsh, but several important friendships ended, whether I wanted them to or not. Other relationships changed in traumatic ways. There was no reconciliation, no redemption, no reunion.
I accumulated positive reviews and lost friends. I wrote something down, guaranteeing I could never speak of it again.
Would it have been easier to keep the secrets? No. But this does not change the fact that I hurt people.
It doesn’t matter if they hurt me first.
Since 2003 my circumstances have changed dramatically. This life is factually better than that life. So why am I still thinking about these things? Why do I spend a significant amount of each day fretting about purely speculative concerns?
Because I know a couple of stories, and the urge to tell is more compelling than the fear of retribution.
When my beloved junkie auntie died my mother turned to me and said Now you can write anything you want about the family.
I didn’t believe her, but I suspect it was meant as an assignment.
My agent and my children urge me to write the stories as fiction, but I retort that I have no imagination. My job would be so much easier if I did – but for whatever reason, I seem to be stuck with facts.
Right now the question is not whether I will write the stories; it is, rather, whether I will allow them to be published.
James has been a close friend since we were sixteen or so, sharing everything imaginable as we ran away toward an obscure future. For twenty years we talked or exchanged letters every single day, and when I asked his advice in 2003 he said:
You are stuck on truth, which is real philosophy of the ethical moral variety. Fiction is something else, namely, the ontological, metaphysical sort of contemplation and assuming. Somehow I do not think you are about possibilities. Rather this other sort of wisdom: action and experience. You really care about remembering what happened; to the point of ruinous arguments over events. The problem is, though you often do not let on, you also worry, quite deeply, about what other people might think or feel about what happened. There is always doubt, and in that doubt, there are feelings – yours and theirs. And at the end of the day, regardless of what happens, you want people to feel alright. You want people to be better. That is your conflict. It is maybe also the point of your writing.
He is one of the people who stopped talking to me after the book was published. He had valid reasons (though it is unlikely he remembers the precipitating event), and his life has been improved by my absence.
Facts do not extinguish feelings. They just help us decide what to do next.



