The Genius in the Cornfield
Urbana professor Richard Powers on his National Book Award-nominated ninth novel, The Echo Maker
By Stephen J. Lyons
November 3, 2006
RICHARD POWERS CALLS it highway
hypnosis—the hallucinatory
state of mind that descends
upon a weary traveler at the end of a
long day on the road. In the late
1990s, the novelist was driving alone
from Illinois to Arizona when in
Nebraska he came upon what he
thought was a mirage: thousands of
three-foot-tall birds falling from the
heavens. Powers was so shocked that
he almost drove off the highway. The
next day he learned that what he’d
seen were sandhill cranes on their
annual migration to the Platte River.
“I got a hotel room and woke up
early the next morning and saw the
massed departure of the birds from
the fields at dawn,” he says. “I had
this awed sense of what these creatures
do every single year, traveling
thousands of miles to converge on
this spot, teaching their offspring
how to follow and time this migration.
I glimpsed how these solitary
creatures, for a brief moment out of
the year, become incredibly social
and form this enormous city of birds.
And I was so taken by the richness of
these processes that I knew I would
have to write about this.”
His ninth novel, The Echo
Maker—published last month by
Farrar, Straus and Giroux and
shortly thereafter named a National
Book Award finalist—sprang from
this chance encounter. Set on the
Platte during the cranes’ migration,
the book follows the mysterious car
accident, brain injury, and subsequent
recovery of a slaughterhouse worker named Mark Schluter.
Diagnosed with a rare neurological
condition called Capgras syndrome,
Schluter becomes the focus of one
Dr. Gerald Weber, a popular neurologist
a la Oliver Sacks, known for
studying and writing about the
oddest brain disorders. And
Capgras is bizarre: the sufferer often
believes that his close family members
are impostors or robots.
Powers, an Evanston native who
lives in Urbana and teaches English
at the University of Illinois, studied
physics during his undergraduate
years and has woven science into the
complex narratives of previous
novels like The Gold Bug Variations
(published a few years after he won
a MacArthur genius grant) and
Galatea 2.2. He saw a connection
between Capgras and the cranes.
“Learning about how the human
brain can become split between
rational and emotional processes—losing the ability to recognize a loved
one while finding everyone else perfectly
recognizable—I remembered
that vision of the cranes and their
mysterious mass staging. That’s
where my story came together.
“In a way,” he continues, “this
book is a return to the neuroscientific
themes I had written about
before, but it’s also an attempt to
bring those themes forward into the
landscape of personal empathy
while raising this larger question
about our connection to other creatures.
Can we recognize ourselves in
other species?”
The Echo Maker feels more accessible
than your previous books.
I hope so. There are ways in which
its theme—the theme of empathy
and of sharing someone else’s view
of the world—required me to
rethink my narrative contract with
readers. I very much wanted to
write a book that would generate
more ways of empathy with wider
kinds of readers.
I was also looking for a way to
absorb a lot of the background
research and neuroscientific material
into the flow of the narrative,
since the book is so much about the
ways that people narrate themselves
and the outside world. So all of this
research, instead of standing by
itself as a separate intellectual frame
as it has in some of my other books,
is now absorbed into the principal
characters’ psyches. And while you
do learn a bit about what’s happening
in cognitive neurology right
now, you’re really learning about the
emotional language of the book’s
brain scientist.
You seem to have found a narrative
for the midwest, a place that is often
dismissed as a bland fly-over region.
I don’t think there’s a single midwestern
narrative. I’ve tried different
ways in several books to tap
into some of those long rhythms
that the midwest invites us to hear.
But it’s a subtle place that opens up
only gradually as you keep looking
at it, and keep listening.
But I think there’s something else
about the midwest. It’s the portion
of the country
that supports
the coasts and
makes the
coasts possible,
so it’s
absolutely
essential to
how the
American
mind works
in its role as a
kind of primary
producer
for all
the rest of this complex ecosystem.
So that’s always intrigued me:
America stripped bare. America
without props and without distractions
or disguises and protections.
A brief bit about your history—you
seem drawn to science.
I always thought I would be a scientist—an oceanographer, geologist,
or physicist. I’ve tried to connect
those disparate passions to fiction
and to show, in my writing, ways in
which science and art are not as far
apart as a lot of people might think.
Science and fiction are profoundly
different cultures, profoundly different
processes, yet they partake of
each other, and they change each
other. They are mutually defining,
like nodes in a tangled network. You
can’t understand humans without
looking at both art and science.
What are the seeds of your writing life?
The seeds of writing in me—boy, I
could narrate that in all kinds of
ways. Certainly, leaving Chicago at
11 to live in Bangkok had an enormous
impact on me. [His family
lived abroad for five years when his
father, a high school principal, took
a job at the International School of
Bangkok.] Being dropped in an
extremely different culture on the
other side of the globe turned me
into an observer. As I grew up, my
love of music intersected with my
love of science to become an interest
in form—pattern making and pattern
finding. Those impulses have
been at the core of my vocation as a
writer. What patterns can I find in
people? What patterns can I find in
the outside world?
I was a child and a young man
who loved to do many different
things and who could do many different
things with a modicum of
skill. Writing novels turned out to
be the only place where I could
pursue all those careers at once
without having to make a choice.
What do you mean by
“all those careers”?
I couldn’t choose, professionally,
between music, history, sociology,
and all different kinds of science.
But every career is fair game for a
novelist’s vicarious enjoyment.
Every road that I didn’t take, every
profession I chose not to pursue,
could become, at least in empathetic
participation, a profession I followed
for three or four years, while
writing another book.
What’s it like to be a writer in the
digital age? You’re rather famously
suspicious of modern conveniences.
(Powers recently bought his first car,
a Prius, and owns neither an
answering machine nor a cell phone.)
The more simplicity that you can
create in your own life, the more
freedom you have to travel in your
fiction. The fewer intrusions and
complications in the real world, the
more rich and textured the creative
process can become. That simplicity
gets harder and harder for me to
preserve with every passing year.
But you can be fabulously wealthy
with lots of material things and have
a low level of intrusion.
That’s certainly true. And some
really great American writers of this
century have exerted tremendous
effort to keep themselves outside of
public life, and I admire them for
doing that. Salinger and Pynchon,
for obvious examples.
I did that myself as much as I
could throughout the first part of
my career. I didn’t do any interviews
for any of the early books, and the
first photograph I did was for my
fifth novel, ten years after I started.
The first release of any kind of biographical
data occurred about then
as well. It’s harder as I grow older to
maintain that same withdrawal
from the world. Now that I’m connected
with the university, I have
obligations and responsibilities that
require me to live more publicly.
And all of that is fine, I think.
The writer looks for some kind of balance between being in and being
out of the world, coming and going.
We find little rhythms on a daily
basis and a weekly basis and over
the course of a year, ways to keep
immersed in the materials that we
need to be thinking about and
absorbing. But we also need to find
ways of removing ourselves from the
thick of things and from the turbulence
of experience in order to
reflect on and write about it. Most
writers develop some kind of cycle
of diving in and then removing
themselves from experience.
The question is the relationship of
technology to the user. The really
perceptive thinkers about technology
have been especially useful
in pointing out, in the last several
years, how tools are not something
external to us or forced upon us, not
something that makes us conform
intellectually to certain forms of
use. Rather, our technologies are
prosthetic extensions of ourselves;
they represent the congealed collection
of our hopes and fears and
dreams about the way we would like
to extend ourselves into the world.
We tend to look at our machines
and ask: are they good or evil? Are
they helping us or hindering us?
What are they doing to our ways of
life? I think those questions miss
the point a little bit. The question is
not what values the machines force
upon us. The question is: what do
we want to do with the machines
we’ve built? Every tool we’ve ever
made can be used and abused, and
that includes writing. We can’t live
in the world without some kind of
moral ambiguity. It’s forever up to
us to shape our stories. 
Send a letter to the editor.
|
No comments yet
Add a comment