Jim Shephard is often called a writers’ writer. I was never sure what that was supposed to mean, exactly, except that he seemed to be extremely popular in MFA program curriculums, but not an author you would often see someone reading on the subway – kind of like a cool band that you’ve never heard of. Except replace “cool band” with “nerdy writer.”
A year or two ago, Ben and I were lucky enough to drink a few tumblers of whisky with Jim Shepard and talk about writing. His body of short stories has had a huge influence on Ben’s writing and he is, in all respects, an enormously great teacher and contemporary writer. When the students in our MFA program got a chance to pick a visiting writer, Ben jumped on the chance to meet the guy in person – to attend a workshop, to listen to a lecture, to share some whisky.
When we asked him about what being a writers’ writer might mean, he took a nice long sip from his glass and told us he thought it was equally as baffling as we did – and then said that it might just be a polite way of saying he wasn’t all that popular. But here we are, a little over a year later, and Shepard’s newest book of short stories, Like You’d Understand Anyway, has just been short-listed for the National Book Award and gotten glowing reviews from everyone and everywhere you can think of. Finally, he seems to be on the radar. And I couldn’t be happier.
Like You’d Understand Anyway is a collection of all first-person short stories, though the similarities between them end there. The settings and time periods range from the site of Hadrian’s Wall during the late Roman Empire, to present day Alaska, to Chernobyl during the nuclear meltdown, to gothic France, to summer camp in 1960s America.
In these stories, Shepard does something that very, very few contemporary do these days: he uses his imagination and has fun. No, you won’t find stories here about a struggling writer in New York City wrestling with ennui or a writing professor who longs for his younger days in Europe. You’ll find adventure stories of failed expeditions in the Australian outback and totally awesome hunts by lackluster Nazis for evidence of the yeti in Tibet during World War II. Each story is lovingly researched and each narrator has such surprisingly authentic and passionate voices that you’ll often slip into simply believing what you read. The acknowledgements section for the book is a list of about 50 non-fiction books – if anything, Shepard is a readers’ writer.
Throughout the book, Shepard proves so many of his writing peers wrong: contemporary literature doesn’t have to be boring, and writing from experience doesn’t mean that you have to write about yourself. You can write a self-reflective story that has a lot of action. You can take thoughts and feelings that you’ve had and transfer them to different places and times.
And that’s the real beauty of the stories: Shepard has a genuine, almost scary handle on the human condition. Think you won’t relate to a Nazi yeti seeker or the first woman in space or a rage-filled defensive end on a high school football team? You’re wrong. As far as you’re being a hopelessly flawed human, Shepard’s got your number. He has that rare writer’s talent – to find combinations of words for feelings we can’t normally find combinations of words for. He’s simply a great storyteller.
I really don’t know what else to say except that you should read the book. If you still aren’t convinced, I’ll link to the shortest story in the collection, “Proto-Scorpions of the Silurian” which originally appeared online at Fail Better. It takes about five minutes to read. Ten if you read it twice.





6 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 30, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Melissa
I may have to find this book. The Scorpion story is pretty amazing.
October 30, 2007 at 6:07 pm
The Fighting Life
Jim Shepard is the best there is.
As I recall, he also said that he didn’t think of himself as a writer’s writer because he almost never won any awards. I think his exact words were: “Charo has more literary awards than I do.”
October 30, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Rachel L
Ugh, I hated that scorpion story. First of all there’s way too much effort to use specific detials. And second, just because the narrator is young do you have to endlessly string together clauses with commas?
October 31, 2007 at 1:16 am
The Fighting Life
Rachel L, I’m not going to try and talk you into liking that story, because that would be stupid, and because obviously I love Jim Shepard and would read a grocery list if he wrote it. But I am going to say I don’t see what you’re talking about.
You don’t like specific details? Really? Because I’ve always found that makes a story more, you know, real.
And I really don’t see the endless stringing together of clauses with commas. As in I don’t think it’s happening in the story. I mean, look at this loaded paragraph:
Later when everything’s quiet I’m still in the kitchen. You can see a divot in the linoleum where the table edge hit. I’m rubbing my leg. My brother’s in his room. My mother’s in hers. There’s tuna in my sock. My throat’s still killing me. There’s not enough self-pity to go around. “He your brother or not?” my father’s asking me.
Where is the youthful stringing together of clauses there? Clearly the narrator is telling us this story as an adult, which is why he even bothers with the Merv Griffin stuff in the first paragraph. Plus there’s the last line, which is killer, and which leads us into further conjectures about the characters and their lives since this period.
Again, you don’t like it, fine, that’s your right as a reader. But I don’t see why not.
December 18, 2007 at 2:33 am
2007 in Books « BROOD
[...] Without further delay… The best book I read in 2007 that was published in 2007: Like You’d Understand Anyway by Jim Shepard. [...]
April 2, 2008 at 9:46 pm
New books to meet, old books to revisit « The Books of My Numberless Dreams
[...] Pioneers!. I visited the blog and scrolled until I found another review, which turned out to be of Shepard’s latest. Sarah’s description got me: In these stories, Shepard does something that very, very few [...]