The Beatrice Interview


Colin Harrison

"This is not the tourist version... or the sitcom or hour-long drama version of New York."


interviewed by Ron Hogan





Read the 2000 interview

Colin Harrison, the husband of novelist/memoirst Kathryn Harrison, is an editor at Harper's and the author of three novels. His most recent novel, Manhattan Nocturne, is written in the voice of Porter Wren, a columnist for a New York tabloid who gets involved in a case that has everything from ruthless international media moguls to very perverse -- and very dead -- independent filmmakers. Most importantly, it has Catherine Crowley, the femme fatale who leads Wren to risk his job, his family, and ultimately his life.

RH: What attracted you to writing a big noir novel about New York?

CH: I can't say that I set out consciously to write a big noir novel. I certainly was going to write a novel about New York. I found as I went along there were things that I kept wanting to put in the book; if that's what made it big, that's what made it big. I don't know what made it noir, although I did make a conscious decision to have a lot of the book happen at night.

RH: What is it about night in New York that you wanted to get?

CH: Night in New York is when everything starts to happen. It's when people let down their guard. There's more action.

RH: The scope of the novel, trying to depict New York at every level from the homeless to the multimillionaires, is an impressive gamble.

CH: I'm fascinated by the city, by the disjunctures of class, sensibility, race...all the things that make New York so exciting and dangerous and continuously sudden.

RH: There's also a lot of real details crammed in here; for example, Mayor Giulani has a significant cameo appearance.

CH: This is not the tourist version of New York, or the sitcom or hour-long drama version of New York. This is a New Yorker's New York, and if I'm going to pull this off, I have to be able to satisfy the standard of New Yorkers. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only standard -- I can't have anything wrong about where things are or what people are doing there. The facts are actually pretty easy to get right, though; it's the sensibility and the total set of observations that's difficult. If I can please a New Yorker with my representation of the city, I think I've done a good job.

RH: I noticed the little plug for Poison in the middle of the book, and that reminded me to ask you about life being married to another writer.

CH: We've been married for a long time now. We read each other's work. We're very different kinds of writers, but still very supportive of each other's work. I'm very very proud of my wife and couldn't imagine not being married to a writer at this point. We've built our whole life around the rhythms of writing. When one person's working hard on his or her book, we know that the other person can't be. Kathryn mostly works during the day, and I mostly write at night because my schedule is filled with my day job at Harper's. We have to coordinate our lives, but it's really not that much different from other married couples who both have careers that are taking them places.

I'm starting work on my new book, and just yesterday I gave my wife the first long section of pages to read, with a few questions, and the interaction really wasn't between two spouses as much as it was between two professional writers who trust each other and care about the other's opinion. It's very satisfying to me to be with somebody like that.

RH: How long did you spend writing the novel?

CH: About three years, nickel-and-diming the time around the magazine responsibilities. I took a couple week-long stints here and there. But this is what I've always done. I've always had a job and written around it, so I'm used to it by now, even if it isn't getting any easier.

RH: Do you see yourself wanting to write full-time, or do you always see yourself doing something else?

CH: Well, I love my job, the magazine I work for and the people I work with. It would be a crushing grief to have to choose between that and the writing. I don't want to choose, and I don't intend to choose. I intend to do both as long as I can. I have satisfactions as an editor that are comparable to my satisfactions as a writer. It's very gratifying to work with good writers and to get a good article into the writing.

RH: It seems to me that being an editor, particularly at a magazine at the level of Harper's, gives you the opportunity for solid relationships with writers, talking with them about words and ideas, that as a writer one would deeply appreciate.

CH: Writing and editing aren't, ultimately, divisible. There are skills and utilities as a writer that I make use of as an editor, and being a writer myself, I can talk to other writers as a writer as well as an editor. As an editor, I can bring that overdeveloped critical mechanism to bear on my own stuff, which isn't to say that I don't need other people's eyes, because I definitely do.

It's like swimming in a pond. Over at that end, there's one kind of fish, over there there's another, but they're all in the same pond together. On the plane over here today, for example, I was reading some of my wife's new book, working on my own novel, and doing stuff for Harper's, switching back and forth constantly.

RH: One of the things that's always fascinated me about writer's minds is our ability to develop that kind of functional non-linearity in our thought processes.

CH: As an editor, you're trained to hop around a lot, to jump into unfinished projects, work on them, and jump out then into another project. That's just the nature of the business.

RH: As somebody who works in new media, it strikes me that hypertext and the Web are in part literalizations of the way that many of us already have learned to think. Porter, for example, juggles a lot of narrative threads together, some of which end early, some of which he returns to after long absences. There's also the matter of the videotapes which Wren watches in order to learn much of the story.

CH: In some ways, Porter's a pre-digital version of what's possible now. He hops around between different stories on paper, but it's a form of hopping that a lot of people know how to do now, on the web. And using those videotapes...the videotapes as objects are part of the story, but they're also part of the zeitgeist, and I feel comfortable that readers can deal with the sequence of disjunctions that they make in the story. They enjoy and ingest those disjunctions, while still being able to keep track of the larger storyline.

But I'm not one of those people who think that the infinite hypertext linked story is going to be that interesting to readers. The reality is that there are some people who know how to tell stories and some people who don't. The people who tell stories, who care about telling stories, spend years learning how to fulfill the human appetite for narrative, for resolution. I don't see a human appetite for irresolution, unless you count channel surfing.

RH: So the best storytellers are the people who can draw a pattern out of the chaos?

CH: In some ways that's what I'm trying to do in this book. There's a lot of chaos in the city, a lot of continuous parallel stories that overlap at different points. As I have one character say, I'm trying to tell the one big story in which all the smaller stories are tangled together.

BEATRICE Joseph Kanon | Tess Collins
All materials copyright © 1996 Ron Hogan