In Alain de Botton’s engaging book, The Art of Travel, he distinguishes between the anticipation and recollection of travel versus the reality of actually traveling.
When we anticipate, we study travel brochures and create in our imagination all sorts of exotic adventures, lying ahead of us. Once really there, we photograph the Eiffel Tower with our friends or family, their arms slung over one another’s shoulders and grinning into the camera. That forms the recollection, the moments we choose to remember.
Magically gone from memory are the delayed flight, the lousy food, and the hotel room overlooking the alley, where the garbage collectors banged tins at 5 am. But, if we otherwise enjoy ourselves, we select those ‘good moments’ and photograph them to construct a different reality from the real reality.
De Botton’s next idea is fascinating. He says that’s exactly what the artist does. Whether writing a novel, painting a picture, or scoring a symphony, the artist imagines the outline of the work [anticipates the delights of the trip] then selects that which is felt to have artistic value [forgets the garbage men and includes friends at the Eiffel Tower]. Just as the traveler now has a fine and satisfying memory of the trip, the artist has a wonderful novel, painting, or musical score. The artist has created art through imagination, selection, rejection, and a combination of artistic elements resulting in something new. The happy traveler has created a wonderful trip.
Then he tells of a man who had a very peculiar experience. After feasting his eyes upon paintings by Jan Steen and Rembrandt, this traveler anticipated beauty, joviality, and simplicity in Holland. Many paintings of laughing, carousing cavaliers had fixed this image in his mind, along with quaint houses and canals. But on a trip to Amsterdam and Haarlem, he was strangely disappointed.
No, according to De Botton, the paintings had not lied. Certainly, there were several jovial people and pretty maids pouring milk, but the images of them were diluted in this traveler’s mind, by all the other ordinary, boring things he saw. Such commonplace items simply did not fit his mental picture. Thus, reality did not compare to an afternoon of viewing the works of Rembrandt in a gallery. And why not? Because Rembrandt and Steen had, by selecting and combining elements, captured the essence of the beauty of Holland, thereby intensifying it.
This is exactly what a writer or any artist tries to do and as a traveler, you may do much the same thing
When writing about a day in your protagonist’s life, you don’t start with what he had for breakfast or that his car wouldn’t start unless it’s germane to the plot or his character. You compress. You select and embellish. You toss out. All the details of your story must combine to intensify real life to create something interesting and of artistic merit. When I started writing the first novel in the Osgoode Trilogy, Conduct in Question, I had to learn it wasn’t necessary to build the whole city with lengthy descriptions of setting and character, before Harry Jenkins [the protagonist lawyer] could do anything. But many nineteenth-century novelists did write numerous pages with glowing descriptions of the Scottish moors or a county hamlet. And that was necessary because, with the difficulty of travel, a reader might well need help in picturing the setting. But today, with the ease of travel, and the surfeit of film, web, and television images, no reader needs more than the briefest description. Just write about walking down Fifth Avenue and the reader immediately gets the picture.
In a novel, only the most meaningful, coherent thoughts are usually included, unless you are James Joyce, the brilliant stream-of-consciousness writer. And so, you, as the writer, can order your protagonist’s thoughts to make complete and utter sense apparently the first time. In the Osgoode Trilogy, the protagonist, Harry Jenkins, does lots of thinking and analyzing [the novels are mysteries, after all]. But his coherence of thought is only produced after much editing and revising. Not much like real life, you say?
Same for dialogue. Interesting characters in books speak better and are much more on point than people really do, partly because the writer can take back words. In real life, we often wish, in retrospect, if only I had said this or that to set him straight. No problem for the writer. Hit the delete button and let him say something truly sharp and incisive.
And so, after comparing what the traveler and the writer do, what can we conclude? I quote De Botton in the Art of Travel.
The anticipatory and artistic imaginations omit and compress; they cut away the periods of boredom and direct our attention to critical moments and, without either lying or embellishing, thus lend to life vividness and a coherence that it may lack in the distracting woolliness of the present.
And so therein lies the difference between Art and Life! And so, the similarity between the traveler and writer.