A slice of life

What are the advantages of drawing on your own life in your fiction? Helen Walters examines the pros and cons via a classic short story by Katherine Mansfield

Like many of Katherine Mansfield’s stories, ‘The Doll’s House’ addresses class and societal divisions; something she will have been well aware of due to her upbringing in one of the most influential families in Wellington, New Zealand. Some of her stories reflect her childhood years in Wellington, while others were inspired by time spent in Europe later in her, sadly all too short, life. As always, you’ll get the most out of this masterclass if you read the story yourself: https://writ.rs/thedollshouse.

The narrative style of the story is interesting. It is told in third person omniscient, with the multiple viewpoints meaning we get to see the story from different perspectives. There is also a narrative voice not tethered to any particular character, which Katherine Mansfield uses to draw the reader’s attention to certain attitudes and opinions. This is the voice that tells us that being a washerwoman is ‘awful’, that it was ‘impossible’ not to laugh at the Kelveys, and many more snide asides.

You’ll notice that characters are introduced into the story in a casual way as though the reader might already know them. This may in fact be the case if the reader is familiar with some of Katherine Mansfield’s other stories as she does sometimes use characters in more than one story. It works well as a technique for helping the reader feel they are entering straight into the world of the story without preamble.

‘The Doll’s House’ focuses on two families in particular; the comfortably off Burnells and the down and out Kelveys. The arrival of the doll’s house mentioned in the title acts as a catalyst for the upcoming encounter between the two families.

Let’s look in more detail at what the story has to say about class and society in early twentieth century New Zealand. We learn first about the Burnell family. They are privileged compared to others in their immediate community, but note that they are not rich enough to be able to live in the fashionable town, or to send their children to the sort of school they would have chosen if there had been a choice.

The girls receive a doll’s house as a present from a friend of the family. It is large – so large that it takes two men to carry and is left in the courtyard rather than being brought into the house. It is also lushly decorated, echoing their own house. The Burnell family is thus confirmed as being well off.

Notice how the ‘mixed’ school attended by the girls has its own hierarchy that reflects that of wider society. At the top of the tree, we have the Burnell girls. We are told that they ‘set the fashion’ for correct behaviour. Then we have all the other children of the neighbourhood with the daughters of doctors and judges ‘forced’ to mix with those of shopkeepers and milkmen. These children, we learn, are considered acceptable to be allowed into the courtyard to view the doll’s house, but not to come into the house or stay for tea. At the bottom, and beyond the pale, are the Kelvey girls. They are the offspring of a washerwoman and a convict and most of the other children have been warned not to even speak to them. The Kelveys, in turn, know not to approach the Burnells. They have been taught to know their place, including by their own mother.

All the girls at the school want to be friends with the Burnells and get to

see the famous doll’s house, something that Isabel, the eldest sister, delights in. No one other than Kezia, the youngest Burnell, sees the Kelvey girls as even worth bothering with. Notice though, that we find the narrator musing that the Kelvey girls understood each other well, implying that perhaps the more privileged families don’t understand each other.

Of course, the attitudes of the children have been handed down from the adults. Notice that when Kezia asks her mother if the Kelvey girls can come to see the doll’s house, she is told that she knows ‘quite well’ why they can’t. Some of the cruelest comments of the schoolgirls would also seem to be repetitions of the words of adults. Kezia is marked out as being different from all the other privileged characters, in that she is the only one who sees the Kelveys as fellow humans.

Another thing to notice about this story is some of the great description which makes it seem to jump off the page. Note the ‘oily, spinach green’ painting of the doll’s house, with its door like a ‘slab of toffee’. The description of the younger Kelvey as a ‘wishbone’ of a child is incredibly evocative, and the two girls being described as like stray cats and like chickens, both describes them visually and accentuates their social position.

One last thing to look out for, which helps to tie the whole story together, is the tiny lamp in the doll’s house.

Kezia is very taken with this, although her older sister is dismissive. The lamp can be seen as symbolic of light and knowledge or illumination. Therefore, it is significant that Kezia is taken with it while her sisters aren’t. And she’s not alone in this. Else Kelvey is said to rarely smile, but at the end of the story she smiles as she tells her sister that at least she saw the lamp. The motif of the lamp brings Kezia and Else together, and also provides a satisfying link between the beginning of the story and the end.

THIS IS NOT A MEMOIR

As we’ve already noted, Katherine Mansfield often used themes and concerns from her own life in her writing. Sometimes you can even tell which character in the story she personally identifies with. In this month’s story it is Kezia, and in another well-known Mansfield story, ‘The Garden Party’, it is Laura. In both cases they are daughters of well-to-do families who try to see past their own class to the wider world. As Kezia and Laura talk about their feelings on the subject, we almost feel as though we may be hearing Mansfield’s own thoughts.

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of bringing your own life into your stories?

Firstly, I think it’s important to recognise that there’s no impervious barrier between fiction and life writing. It is something of a spectrum.

At one end we have pure fiction; stories recounted about things entirely made up from the author’s imagination. Then we have stories that might be somewhat influenced by a writer’s life experiences. This would include things like crime stories written by former police officers or stories set in the horse racing world written by former jockeys. Next, we have stories that are semiautobiographical. In these some events covered in the story might be events that have occurred in the writer’s life but set in a story framework that is fictional. Finally, we have fictionalised memoir. This is a story that is based on someone’s life story, or a period or event in their life, but with fictionalised details. This will most likely include names, locations and other identifying features being changed, and may be done for reasons of confidentiality or preserving privacy.

• ADVANTAGES

One advantage of using your own life experiences in your stories is that you can avoid sitting looking at a blank page in the same way that someone writing purely made-up stuff does. This might make you more productive as a writer if it means you don’t have to sit around waiting for the muse to strike.

Using your own experiences can also help lend authenticity to your writing. For example, you’ll be able to describe activities you are familiar with in a level of detail that helps the reader feel they are experiencing them with you. It can also help when trying to bring emotion into your writing. If you’ve felt the deep distress of a bereavement, this will help you put that emotion onto the page. If you’ve experienced a bitter betrayal, you’ll be better able to describe how that felt to your reader. This isn’t to say that you would necessarily replicate the incident in its entirety, but that you would use the first hand knowledge you’ve gained from the experience to bring your writing to life.

• DISADVANTAGES

One disadvantage of using things that have really happened to you in your stories, is that other people involved in the incident may recognise themselves or the circumstances, and be offended or hurt. Only you will be able to judge what level of fictionalisation you might need to employ to get past that.

And there are a couple of other things to bear in mind. Just because something happened to you, doesn’t make it interesting. It’s tempting to think that because we find something amusing, exciting or special that other people will as well. Think about your audience and what might be interesting to them. What do you need to add to your tale to give it wider appeal?

Lastly, just because something happened to you doesn’t mean it’s necessarily believable. Weird things, including massive coincidences, happen in life all the time. But when we’re writing fiction, we have to make sure that what we are telling the reader seems plausible in the overall context of the world of the story. If you offer the reader something they simply can’t accept as possible, you risk throwing them out of the story and losing their trust in you as a writer.

While using some of your life circumstances can enhance your stories, as we’ve seen, there can be pitfalls in doing this as well. So, make use of your own experiences where appropriate, but don’t forget the magic of fiction. Memoir writers may have facts on their side, but in fiction sometimes we can find the freedom to tell deeper truths.