The Matt Ruff is an exceptional writer. Not transcendent, mind you (which is a compliment). If this makes any sense at all, he’s as great as he needs to be and not a bit more or less. It’s disgusting how talented a writer Matt is. That was supposed to be my job.
I read “Sewer, Gas, and Electric” first; that was my intro to Mr. Ruff’s work. After falling head over heels in love with it (and him), I went back and read “Fool on the Hill”. Yes, it was as good as people claimed it to be. But where were the other books by Matt? Only two novels? That was a real bummer.
There was a bit of time that passed between his second novel and his third. “Set This House In Order” was released and, chomping at the bit, I devoured it. That was when my brain exploded a little. That was when my mind opened to how truly thrilling this author was.
You see, the genius of Matt Ruff (and, no doubt, the reason it takes a little time between reads) is that he takes each novel and writes it in a different genre, mood, style, humor. It’s weird and brilliant. And, in that regard, it prevents Matt from being compared to any other author, or associated with one particular style. Christopher Moore has a certain style. Carl Hiaasen has a very specific pattern and language. Matt Ruff is a chameleon.
“Bad Monkeys” is the book that’s been on the tongues of many a person here lately. I read it and adored it (no surprise there, with this over-egregious love letter to Matt). So what’s the next project? Well, I was eager to find out. I was – and still am – eternally grateful that Matt agreed to answer a few questions. We chat “Amusing Black Men”, an alternate 9/11, and some very, very cool upcoming projects.
Eric Mays: Thank you, Matt, for taking time out of your busy schedule to do this interview. You know what impressed me the most about you, Matt? It's the story of your "Amusing Black Men" (the basis for the Electric Negroes). In fact, you're the only person who, I believe, knows exactly how many Amusing Black Men are in the movie "Die Hard". Tell us a little about this revelation.
My read on what was going on there is that the producers of Die Hard were making a good-faith effort at diversity, given the constraint that the lead hero and villain roles were already taken by white men (Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman, respectively). And in terms of giving paying gigs to black actors, I think they did a decent job. But in terms of giving those actors satisfying roles to play, I think what they mainly achieved was to demonstrate the difference between quantity and quality.
EM: Some would say that this is racist. I don't agree. I've talked about the "Magical Negroes" in cinema for a time (you know, your Bagger Vances, Morgan Freeman, and that guy from "The Green Mile"). Oh, and I totally agree with your theory regarding black female judges. To them, what do you say, sir?
MR: For those aren’t familiar with it, my theory, which may have been truer in the ‘80s and ‘90s than it is today, is that if a movie has a judge in it, that role is very likely to go to a black woman. The reason is that it’s an easy affirmative action nod. It’s a twofer—Look! We cast a woman and a person of color! In a position of authority!—but at the same time it doesn’t require any extra effort on the part of the screenwriters. All movie judges are pretty much the same, and since you never see them outside work you don’t have to imagine a home life for them, or even a complete personality—just a couple of good one-liners. They’re low-maintenance characters.
As for whether Amusing Black Men and Magical Negroes are racist: sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. It depends on the execution. But instead of asking, “Am I being racist?”, I think a better question for novelists and filmmakers to keep in mind is “Am I being lazy?” Even patently offensive stereotypes can have their place in a story, but when the angry emails start flooding your inbox, you’re going to want a better justification than “I didn’t feel like working too hard.”
MR: I’d have to say Set This House in Order. I think it’s my personal best in terms of storytelling achievement, as well as my first fully mature work. I’m very fond of Bad Monkeys, too, but that was a smaller and less ambitious novel, and a lot easier to write.
EM: If I read correctly, you had some pretty remarkable professors at Cornell. Moment of Truth: Who was your favorite?
MR: There were two. The professor who I was closest to, and who did the most for me in terms of mentoring, was a guy named Bob Farrell. He was both an English teacher and a medieval archeologist—which is to say, a huge Lord of the Rings fanboy—and he served as my senior thesis advisor.
The other was Alison Lurie, to whom I am forever indebted for introducing me to her literary agent, the fantastic Melanie Jackson. Melanie took my senior thesis—the manuscript for Fool on the Hill—and sold it to Atlantic Monthly Press just six months after I graduated.
EM: "Fool on the Hill" was your first book. You've got to have the one of the coolest writer tales on the globe - writer writes masterwork for thesis, it's published and he's an instant success!
EM: Because you write in very different styles and tones, Matt, how do you keep from going slightly bi-polar?
MR: By only writing one novel at a time and by writing very slowly. It’s not as if I’m constantly switching between styles—just the opposite, I spend years honing one style, for one particular story, so by the time I’m done I’m more than ready to try something new.
EM: Speaking of mental illnesses, how much research did you do for "Set This House in Order" on multiple personalities?
MR: Not nearly as much as people generally suppose. I was interested in multiple personality disorder long before I started working on the novel, so a lot of my research consisted of rereading biographies and case studies I already had copies of. But a lot of it was just empathy—once I’d figured out the ground rules of how Andrew and Penny’s “households” worked, I put myself in their places and let my imagination do the rest.
EM: I hear your upcoming work is an alternate history, yeah?
MR: Yeah. It’s called The Mirage, and it’s a 9/11 novel, but a 9/11 novel set in a different universe. Bruce Willis will not be playing the lead in the film adaptation.
EM: Now, "The Mirage" was being pitched as a television show for Fox, right? But they thought it was too controversial (Fox? No way!). First the Amusing Black Men and now this? You really like to push the envelope (joking).
MR: Something my wife pointed out to me a while ago is that when I praise a book or a movie I really like, I’ll often start by mentioning all the ways the story could have gone horribly wrong, but didn’t. I do like risky story ideas, the kind of thing where when you hear the premise, you think, “Well, if that works, it’ll be great, but if it doesn’t, it’ll be really, really awful and embarrassing.” I enjoy a challenge, and the thrill of apprehension that comes from the chance of catastrophic failure. It keeps me from getting lazy.
If you’ve never read Ruff, you’re doing yourself a huge disservice. Please, please, please, pick up a copy of any of his books. All of them are amazing. Also, stroll by his website, http://www.bymattruff.com/, for more amusing essays (similar to the Amusing Black Man theory). I highly recommend Sewer, Gas, and Electric or Bad Monkeys for summer beach reading (a term I hate, but at least you know what I’m referring to) and Set this House in Order for a more intense, stay in bed sort of read.
The next few weeks are going to be big. Next week we’ll sit down with YA bestselling author AND #1 bestselling crime author, Ridley Pearson. Ridley and I chat about Dave Barry, the Rockbottom Remainders, ponies, and Walt Fleming. Then the following week is a smorgasbord of fun: The Authors Speak: The Good, the Funny, and the Stinky of Horror. We’ll welcome Michael Laimo, Mark McLaughlin, and Jason Wuchenich to the table.
Until then, keep reading.
1 comments: