What I Have Written

by John Alan Scott

'He told me this much... that he'd met a woman in Paris and that they'd been writing to each other. That their letters had become increasingly erotic.' A man who can no longer talk to his wife. His brief encounter with another woman. The beginnings of a possible affair in letters. Letters which might have been turned into a novel or a detailed confession. These are the facts. But the facts begin to shift. Fiction and reality become indistinguishable in one persons' search for truth and another's realisation of desire. What I Have written is a novel of sexual obsession a literary puzzle in which what is written is far from what it seems.

Genres: Fiction

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

John Alan Scott (who has published under the names John A. Scott and John Scott) is an English-Australian poet, novelist and academic.

Scott was born in Littlehampton in Sussex, England, migrating to Australia during his childhood. Over several books of poetry his work developed in an 'experimental' direction unusual in Australian poetry, owing partly to his interest in translation. Indeed he has translated a volume, Elegies, of the contemporary French poet Emmanuel Hocquard. However since the 1990s he has concentrated on producing novels.

His work has won him the Victorian Premier's Award twice, in 1986 and again in 1994. The collection of novellas What I Have Written has been filmed from his own screenplay and he has been translated into French, German and Slovenian. He has taught in the Faculty of Creative Arts at Wollongong University but now writes full-time.

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I Have Written might be better titled What Have I Written. What initially presents itself as a standard epistolary tale becomes something completely different. This short novel (my version has most generous margins and a large pleasing font) can be read in one sitting, and perhaps better it is so any critical thought to it can be applied at the end. The pacing is swift and the prose is perfumed with the author's poetical past.

This is my second Scott and though I was more impressed by N , What I Have Written is the more complete work. It is tighter, more focused (though N's lack of focus was something I loved about it) and content to let a few unanswered questions linger. In 1996 it was turned into a film directed by John Hughes - no not that John Hughes - which has a respectable rating of 6.7 (from 3 reviewers/1 critic at the time of this review). It's a shame Scott's work is not more widely known. He is one of few Australian authors happy to play with form and language. What I Have Written is a remarkable example of an unreliable narrator and an exploration of the author's role in story. Oh, and some of it is pretty much smut too, if that's your bag, you sicko.

[David Grant · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very original Australian novel of dark erotica.

This is not for everyone. It contains some very vivid prose involving tragedy, bleak obsession, narcissism and depravity.

The story itself is a situation involving three key players, their writing and their reflections ... all of which culminate in a bizarre symbolic parallel to Da Vinci's painting "The Virgin, Child and Saint Anne."

Scott's style of prose is seductively poetic. He is one of Australia's most underrated writers.

[Vasha7 · Rating 1 out of 5]

What I Have Written opens with a lengthy section consisting of a narrative that was read by its author's wife after his sudden stroke. The characters in this "novella" wear their disguised names lightly: "Avery" is Christopher, the author; "Gillian" is Sorel, his wife; and "Catherine" is Frances, the woman with whom he exchanged increasingly erotic letters. Sorel read it, and found that everything in it that she could verify was exactly true; and thus was forced to believe that its emotional content was also true -- an intensely painful experience, since it appeared to reveal that he had despised her all the while she was unaware of it; that he had desires that he had never shared with her from the very beginning of their marriage; that when, after some months of sleeping apart and no longer speaking to her, he came to her, reconciled, and told her he loved her, this was but a calculated act, inspired by his affair-in-letters.

Since, during the second part of the novel ("written" by Sorel), Christopher is already unconscious and dying in the hospital, the only impression that readers get of him is as he seems as narrator of the "novella". It is not a flattering picture. The writing is highly literary, but without lightness or charm; the depictions of sex are totally explicit without (in my opinion) being arousing. This makes the series of letters from "Catherine" to "Avery" that are included rather surprising. His letters to her are not reprinted; however, we can infer from her replies that, from friendly, she becomes increasingly charmed by him and finally passionate. Yet nothing we have seen of Christopher so far indicates him capable of writing such winning letters -- especially since Frances appears (especially in those of her letters reprinted outside the "novella") to be a woman of sensitivity, experience, and intelligence.

The third part of the novel, "written" by Christopher's friend Jeremy, contains revelations that explain some things about the "novella" and its history. These may explain some puzzling inconsistencies in Christopher/Avery's character and especially in Frances/Catherine's. Sometimes she reveals a remarkable mind (her letter of August 23 is quite charming -- I'd rather like to quote from it at length) but other times she's a cliché sexpot. The account of her first (and only) private conversation with "Avery" was so predictable it made me groan -- when it began, I thought I knew how it would run if "Catherine" was the model seductress; and it did so exactly.

What I Have Written is a tangle of narrative voices, of multiple "hands" contributing to the "writing". John A. Scott largely leaves sorting them out as an exercise for the reader. Ultimately, the reader is likely to close the book with the feeling of having been manipulated, by some of the "authors" and especially by the author. Does the payoff justify it? Sadly, I'd say no. I enjoy an intellectual puzzle, but this one is neither deep enough to provide continuing matter for thought, nor neat enough to provide the consolation prize of relaxing pleasure. Scott has largely sacrificed characters and subordinate themes in the service of a cold narrative game that doesn't repay much.

[Debbie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This novel is not so much literary or erotic, as trying hard to be literary and erotic. It's not that the author can't string words together. But the story isn't interesting and feels derivative of classics that would feel, as this does, outdated if they were authored today.

[Mariana Monteiro · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was absolutely unhinged from the start. 10 minutes into reading and I had to DNF. How can it open up with him talking about wanting to ejaculate over a young girl to then having a detailed description of it? Eww. Made me feel nasty reading so will not carry on.

[François · Rating 3 out of 5]

Een Australische liefde, beschreven door drie partijen, met een beangstigend slot.

[Lisa]

I read all of part one, but the erotic fantasies were repulsive and I decided not to go on.
I know it won an award, and I really liked N by this author, but this one is not for me.

[comfort]

I am finding this a hard slog, but will persevere

[Velvetink · Rating 2 out of 5]

donated to The Smith Family charity