Dalisay: The historical part of the term ‘historical fiction’ requires much attention to detail and historical facts. We think we know the past but we don’t. Or even that we don’t know the past at all. To Aristotle, tragedy was superior to history itself because history merely concerns itself in what happened, but tragedy deals with what could happen. It is therefore the burden of the historical fictionist to offer more than what historians or fictionists could offer.
Galan: When you publish your work, will your footnotes be there?
Harper: Yes, because they’re deliberately there to show that it really happened.
Dalisay: But what happens is that it establishes a certain point of view. At some point in the work, there is a ‘we’ which was not evident in the beginning, and it was the ‘we’ that was doing the footnoting. It not just distracts me but also makes me ask what your interest is and saan ka pumoposisyon sa ‘we’ that is talking. Another concern of mine is that since there was some reference to modern things that are disturbing to some degree. Nakaka-diskaril since you put so much effort to bring us back to the past.
Harper: The reference to Cheryl Cole should have been deleted because it was too contemporary. I wanted an omniscient narrator for this one to give an idea of a puppet master.
Dalisay: But pwede mo kayang tanggalin ang ‘we’? Kasi yun ang nakakadiskaril. Or why not introduce it a little earlier on in the work?
Harper: But there is also the idea that there should be some idea of fantasy involved. Should I add a sort of evil presence in the story?
Dalisay: But an evil presence would provide a narrative escape; makes it too easy.
Harper: Yes, it’s probably unnecessary and besides I really wanted a lighter tone for this novel.
Abad: I’m curious how to organize chapter one.
Harper: The thing is, it’s of conversions of peoples within Intramuros, it’s all going on at the same time.
Garcia: Going back to the ‘we,’ I like the potential irony of having an omniscient narrator who is self-consciously intruding into the narrative; that makes the work self-aware.
Dalisay: I don’t mind it, I just want it to be established earlier on.
Lee: I wanted to know more after reading the story, and that was a good thing. But I had a bit of difficulty with the first chapter simply because there was a lot of jumping from one point of view to another.
Harper: I wanted to convey the confusion; that there were a lot of things going on.
Galan: You mentioned that you wanted to make a sort of picaresque novel; maybe it would be more interesting if it didn’t focus on the persona who was from the privileged class.
JCR: Maybe the work would be more interactive if the personas actually already meet from the beginning.
Ong: So what is the main story?
Harper: The main story would be how did the main families in Intramuros came to be.
Siy: Ang napansin ko sa historical writers, kukunin muna ang facts, then pagdudugtong-dugtungin; pero diba’t kapag fiction, pwede namang kayo ang mag-connect ng dots. Para sa akin, pwede pang i-tighten ang characters.
Harper: It was mainly a story of people in that era, it was not, in a sense, about the main event that was happening.
Dalisay: Inevitably, even if our intentions are fairly modest, when we assume the job of writing historical fiction, whether we like it or not, we are making a commentary on history.
JCR: After all, kapag nagkukwento tayo, kwento lang yun pero di naman yun ang talagang kinukwento natin – I do not want to use the word ‘statement,’ pero ano ang thesis mo as a writer? Yung obsession sa paggawa ng historical novel, ano ang compelling reason behind it? What story would really want to tell us?
Harper: Part of it is that I’m not a historian. Basically, ang dapat lumalabas dyan is the history of the Philippines according to me. Kung ano ang istorya ng Filipino doon. As for the thesis? That we don’t know our history. What I wanted to show was the ordinary persons – I didn’t want the heroes but the ordinary soldiers, nuns, people. History is not just about the generals but also about the troop soldiers. I wanted to show that ordinary people existed and they weren’t very different from us.
JCR: Ang ibig sabihin ko sa thesis; sa fascination sa isang concept, yang nobela mo kasi ay isa lamang vehicle para masabi mo ang gusto mo.
Dalisay: It seems to me, ang isang underlying na tema dyan ay ang making of a nation; ang iba’t ibang hibla na pumapasok sa pagbuo ng isang bayan; kung sino tayo ngayon. What you say about corruption interests me because I wanted to see the opposite: that despite corruption, we were able to endure. Kasi from a philosophical point of view, I would not look at history as something so dismal. Somewhere there, somebody did the right thing. Otherwise, lagi na lang tayong biktima.
Harper: What I wanted to show was that corruption was what prevailed.
Wigley: You have historical researches which actually form a story; there are narratives, outlines. At the same time, you are presenting micronarratives of people. Ang question ko, if you are the writer, since mayroong fixed story as far as history is concerned, ano ang mas primary: ang pagpasok ng history na halos alam ng karamihan, o kailangan bang idevelop muna ang kwento bago ipasok iyon?
Harper: The characters have to come first. Somewhere along the line, you do come in with an outline, but the historical event cannot be more important than your character.
Lumbera: You said you wanted to make a narrative about the people below; the ordinary people. So kailangang isipin mo na kung ano ang ikukwento mo tungkol sa mga taong ito so that by the time you get to a full-blown story, mayroon ka nang handle na mahahawakan.
Abad: But at the back of your mind also, it’s going to be a picaresque. At the end of it all, ordinary people rin ba ang magiging major focus ng buong trilogy?
Harper: Yes, it will all be about ordinary people.
JCR: Kaya nga gumagawa tayo ng historical fictions, dahil sa totoong buhay, lahat tayo ay talo. Kaya nga ang moment of victory would be the time to end the story. Kung ganoon ang magiging thesis mo, na may reaction sa monopoly, revolt, etc., where do you intend to end?
Lumbera: Sa halip na isipin natin na this is going to be a trilogy, iyon munang unang nobela an gating pag-usapan.
Dalisay: Para sa akin, napakaimportante ng nobelista dito para ma-laydown ang principles sa historical fiction na ito. Basically, we’re seeing it at street level. Some strategic choices had to be made early on so that the tone was set very, very early.
Libiran: How would you open it? Would it be like a wide shot of the place, or would it be like The Color Purple where it’s focused on a black woman doing an insignificant thing while big events are about to happen? The beginning would really set off the tone.
Tolentino: Maybe it should not just be about ordinary daily life, but the cosmos of ordinary people and their beliefs.
Lumbera: The outlook is too pessimistic; you need to learn to lighten the tone and to laugh about corruption.
Dalisay: Perhaps it’s because the lightness that you say you want to achieve in your novel is coming from a disconnected character. The ‘we’ should be established earlier on and don’t let the language carry you, but let the situation carry the comedy. Comedy should be embedded in the situation and not on an intelligence which is outside the whole thing.
JCR: Hindi ba’t maganda kung ang opening line ay mayroong promise of change? Kumbaga sa pelikula, ang first three minutes ang pinaka-importante.
Libiran: It’s very exciting material. I can see it as a film.
Dalisay: We really want to see it light and picaresque, and have a strong character who is preferable lower class. It would help to decide who your main character would be in something so complex.
Abad: You would also have to establish how perceptive the main character is.
Dalisay: But there would still be things that the main character would not be privy to, so you would still have to use a third person tone. It’s going to be your sensibility that would drive the novel.
follow @upworkshop for live Twitter updates
UP WORKSHOP 2013 