One Day in relation to "the rule"

In a writing class I recently took, my teacher was giving a lesson on writing in the moment. His big idea was that the action of an event is more captivating than the build up or the aftermath. He said the key question you have to ask yourself when deciding the position of the story is what makes this moment unlike any other?

Does this idea apply to David Nicholls? He shows us Dexter and Emma on June 15^th of every year. If each June 15^th they share is unlike any other day, then is the book all that believable?

Now I’m sitting here trying to think of a chapter that showed an insignificant day in the life of Dexter or Emma. There were some. However, even the seemingly insignificant moments served their purpose as a representation in a year in the life of the character. When Emma’s life was particularly monotonous in the time when she lacked the confidence to pursue her dreams, we’d catch a snapshot of her waitressing at a Tex-Mex restaurant, or dating some guy whom she could hardly stand to converse with. The moments we saw were lack luster, just as her life was in general over those years. This goes to show that even insignificant moments can be build a theme or character development.

Were these moments unlike any other? Yes. They were because they were moments of action. Even the mundane chapters stood on their own, instead of being build ups to the more monumental moments. This proves that a moment, no matter how ordinary, can be unlike any other as long as it is a moment of action and builds toward the theme.

So, viewers, my verdict is that my teacher’s advice does apply to Nicholls. By thinking that it wouldn’t, I was misinterpreting the advice to begin with. I thought that the teacher meant that when writing, you must pick a monumental moment that grabs the reader. Instead, he meant that you should take a moment and make it monumental through literary techniques such as motifs, character development, or an underlying theme. (Nicholls doesn’t use many motifs, but they are a fantastic devise so I had to throw them in there.) Sometimes, the specific day-by-day snapshots are the ones that stick with a reader, because they are unique yet relatable.

I have decided that I would like to alter my teacher’s words a little bit; the key question you must ask yourself when deciding the position of a story is how can I show that this moment is unlike any other?

One Day Character Bias

Alright so it looks like my first post on this nifty little english blog is going to be about my "easy summer read" called One Day by David Nicholls. I started reading the book about a week ago when I was sitting outside Eugene O'Neill Theater student rushing the broadway play Book of Mormon. I only read about 20 pages at the time, but the urbane romance caught my attention, so I stopped in to Elm Street Books yesterday to get myself a copy.

The gist of the novel is that a pair of British high school graduates have a one night stand, and thereafter become best friends of sorts. Each chapter is an annual snapshot of their lives (July 15th of every year). The book follows them for 20 years as they grow together and apart, yada yada.

Specifically, I want to talk about Nicholls' indiscrete manipulation of character. We only see one day of Dexter and Emma (the two main characters) each year. Given the format of the book, Nicholls focuses on molding and shifting the reader's opinion of the two characters as with each chapter. He does this blatantly so the reader is consciously pulled to and away from his characters. As a reader, I found my awareness of Nicholls' control over me both discomforting and awe-striking.

The more potent of the two characters is definitely Dexter in his perpetually young recklessness. He is the player; the suave, girl-a-week type who has always held a special place in his heart for Emma. Thanks to his internal monologues that Nicholls includes every few chapters, we readers love Dexter because we know he means well. However there is a point in the story, when Dexter becomes particularly lost in his booze and pursuit of fame, where his self-awareness turns skewed. This is when I most admire Nicholls as a writer. I admire him because he bends the rules by offering a solid two chapters where Dexter has literally no redeeming qualities. His arrogance, which in the start of the novel was clearly a defense mechanism, has crept into his true character and he's too drunk (and self-riteous) to see it. Nicholls turns things up a level from your average rom-com novel by daring the reader to lose faith in Dexter. He can get away with it because Dexter's integrity is already established in his perpetual love for Emma. In the two chapters of Dexter's rock bottom, he does not speak to Emma at all, further polarizing the reader's view of each character.

On a benign level, Nicholls' craft reminds of a grossly funny documentary called the Aristocrats. In the documentary, one of the interviewed comedians says that the "Aristocrats" joke is so funny because it touches upon the few taboos that are still taboo. Nicholls nudges at the taboos of romantic novels first by daring us to despise his male lead. Of course, we are cheering for Dexter the whole time, waiting for the moment that Emma will come and redirect him to find his old, purer self. Nicholls bends the rules a second time by having it be another woman, not Emma, who lifts him out of his drunken stupor. (I'll post a spoiler alert at the top of this one - sorry guys I'm new at this). Intruigingly, the finality of this second offense is the only moment in the book thus far where I have been tempted to put it down. After taking us trudging through their complicated (and obviously destined) history, it is unfair for Nicholls to suddenly reveal to us that maybe Em and Dex won't be together forever. That's the whole deal with a romantic novel: the reader remains pseudo-happy through the characters’ misery, comforted by the secret knowledge that by the end the two lovers will find their way back stronger than ever in their almost brokenness. PHYSCH! Not going to happen here. I'm so frustrated at his daringness, and yet I love this David Nicholls guy for having the balls to disappoint us all.

There is a chance I'm not so good at this book review thing simply because I am so hot with emotion over this story. It's an odd sensation to stop right around the climax to analyze how the book affects me, instead of just letting it wash over me as I go. Due to my eagerness to return to the book, I'm not sure if my points are coming across clearly. That will have to be fixed at some point, but not before I go finish this sucker!