After all, it's only a flawed protagonist who has room to change, and writers need to locate flaws in themselves to leap creatively into their characters.Once in the late 90s, a girlfriend told me that she and a friend, in 7th grade, escorted a very hirsute younger boy to the road and took down his pants when cars passed. This wasn’t funny or charmingly “edgy.” She was ashamed of the event. Her mom was a mess and her brother was dangerous, and so she did something awful. She wrote about it in a compelling and honest way.
When my family's Christian community cut us off the vine after my dad confessed that he quit drinking--and thereby revealed that he used to drink--I targeted the nicest boy on my baseball team and punched him in the face. The other boys had followed their parents' orders to shun me after we were cut off, but the boy I punched had still counted me as a friend. But I didn't fear him--he was nice--so he was the one I socked.
In my short story "Convent Boys," two boys encounter a special needs boy who seems to understand that they are poor and unhappy. To pay him back, the boys hit him with a pillow and rough him up a little. While this never happened, I used my experience of punching the nice boy, and the guilt I still have about it, and transferred it to "Convent Boys."
We can get bogged down in too much confession. But when we're not allowed to confess anything due to fear of others' politics or religion, a little confession can be a good thing. It sure beats pretending that we're wonderful and that only others are bad.
The 90s was a more creative time than our own moment. Therefore people were more likely to reveal themselves, in short stories or everyday life.
The ability to admit shameful moments and explore them in fiction shows a healthy awareness that we and others are flawed. Conversely, projecting false positivity, concealing flaws, and blaming others reveal a person who lives as a hidden creature, hidden even from himself, and this person is far more likely to damage others and to produce bad writing.
Exploring a flawed protagonist doesn’t mean the author committed the sin. Rather, there’s a basic stance that the character, and the author, have the ability to do wrong. In stories by Denis Johnson, Amy Hempel, Barry Hannah, Joyce Carol Oats, and Raymond Carver, we see sympathetic characters who are sometimes up to no good. And that is fiction at its best.
Chris Offutt
Offutt was a visiting writer at BSU at one point. The MFA director, Mitch Weiland, told me they went to a bar in Boise one day, and some Marine was talking shit to a woman at a different table, using sexual and demeaning language.
Offutt told the Marine to shut his mouth. When the Marine continued to intimidate the woman and mention her physical assets, Offutt smashed a wine bottle on the table, held onto the bottle neck, and stood up. Then Mitch hustled him out of there before it came to that.
As a student and teacher at the Iowa Writers' Workshop, Offutt was a wild Southerner. He got into fights at bars now and then, but he confronted the ugly, mean, shitty hearts in some people when he encountered them, and I believe he does that in his writing, in part. He didn't look for fights, but he didn't shy from physical confrontations either. Often he stood up for others.
Fistfights were more common then in the Midwest, twenty years ago. Even workshop students resorted to their fists over discussions of books, once or twice, after too many drinks at the Foxhead.
When he was my teacher at Iowa, Offutt had a parole officer. This seemed amazing to me. I was intrigued. I had tangled with cops and judges as a young teenager, and spent nights in juvenile detention, but here Chris was still a wild child in his 40s.

He's married now and has slowed down in his drinking, as they say. He went to Hollywood and wrote for True Blood and Weeds, then published a couple of Southern noir novels. He's one of the best writers of our time. The man is even big in France, where he has won four national literary awards. But his books, published in twelve languages, are known around the world.
He seemed to like my work pretty well, though he never said so directly in workshop. Once, I walked home in the snow through downtown, and I heard Chris shout my name behind me. He'd slowed in his Lexus at a cross street. He called, "I think you're a really good writer!"
That was big news for me in those struggling, insecure days. Many Iowa students seemed like patrician hipsters, too ivy-league, too PC, for my taste. My class had four students from Yale, and there was another, from Princeton, whose family vacationed with the Kennedys. Most of my fellow students didn't favor my Idaho stories. But one of my friends, Katie, a Harvard grad with acne and bright red hair, had as much social anxiety as I had, and we were together against the others.
But Offutt's compliment helped me a lot. I didn't tell anyone about it, except my girlfriend. He and I didn't talk much, but we had a rural, working class connection. He saw past the stereotypes of Idaho that were a sticking point for graduates of Old Eli.
They believed you shouldn't write about rural areas, or if you did, you should do it in a disapproving, Mother Jones sort of way. One of them told me that the crazy drunk uncle in my story "They Work at Night" didn't deserve a voice. Another told me that Annie Proulx's Wyoming Stories was a "no no."
Who were these shocking weenies? I didn't know why they were here. Many of these people went on to be lawyers, high-end political fundraisers, or not so literary genre writers.
Beyond the many narrow students, the Iowa Writers' Workshop was an accepting place. Maybe the best evidence of their absolute commitment to writing was their warm inclusion of Chris Offutt, who was a prized author. Director Frank Conroy may have had to fetch him from jail now and then, but he always had a job waiting for him. Offutt was charming and well-liked by men and women. But I doubt a traditional academic department would have endured his Southern traits.
I learned more about writing from Chris Offutt than from any other teacher. His trouble with the law only made him more interesting.
Professor Gage was my best teacher at the University of Oregon. He taught Modernist authors and rhetoric. When he spoke at his podium, his mouth often moved silently in his beard for a second. He was forming precise language to get his ideas across. He was brilliant, sure, but careful in his words, so that he rarely talked over our heads.
Though his ideas were difficult, he succeeded at communicating quite a lot.
If he didn't think much of students' responses in class, he'd let them know. He wasn't there to "serve student customers" like teachers do now. There were intelligent answers and the other kind. He wasn't a jerk, but he didn't waste time engaging unpromising contributions.
This was in the 90s when an English major was demanding. There were twice as many literature requirements as there are now. Every English major had to take a year of Shakespeare, for instance. In addition, students were required to read all books in each class, amounting to about twelve or fifteen. On the trimester system, that adds up to a lot in four years. And there were no YA alternatives for students who couldn't handle Middlemarch, etc.
Since I hadn't gone to high school, I spent my undergrad days catching up. I was nervous and inarticulate when I spoke. Writing papers for English classes was the only thing I was good at.
I probably seemed not so bright to most professors, but I could surprise them with a knockout paper. That said, Gage wasn't impressed.
But he wasn't there to believe in me--I was there to believe in him. You could have ten teachers who believe in you, but who can't teach you a thing.
Regardless of what he thought about me, he taught me how to read a literary text, or at least provided a foundation for later efforts. That's valuable instruction for an undergraduate, and a lot more involved than some might imagine.
There must be few professors like that now. I hope the department gives them every encouragement and assistance.